I 

/- 


V 


) 


:  f  * 

I  i 


i 


h 


i 


Digitized  by  the  internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/ancestryofourengOOpric 


F.C.B.  del. 


Hebrew  Text  on  Papyrus  from  the  Second  Century  (Cook). 
Exodus  20  ;  2-17 


The  Ancestry  of 
Our  English  Bible 

An  Account  of  Manuscripts,  Texts, 

AND  Versions  of  the  Bible 


By  / 

Ira  Maurice  rRicE,  Pn.D. 

Professor  of  the  Semitic  T-anguages  and  Literatures 
in  the  University  of  Chicago 


EIGHTH  EDITION 


PHILADELPHIA 

The  Sunday  School  Times  Company 

1923 


Copyright,  1906 

By  The  Sunday  School  Times  Co. 

First  edition,  February,  1907 
Second  edition,  July,  1907 
Third  edition,  March,  1909 
Fourth  edition,  February,  1910 
Fifth  edition,  November,  1911 
Sixth  edition,  September,  1915 
Seventh  edition,  January,  1920 
Eighth  edition,  November,  1923 


PREFACE 


Our  English  Bible  is  the  descendant  of  a  long  line 
of  ancestors.  It  is  the  gathering  up,  the  localization, 
of  the  best  that  is  found  in  all  the  manuscripts  and 
versions  extant.  It  is  the  result  of  the  best  efforts 
of  about  seventy-five  of  the  leading  scholars  of  the 
last  quarter  century. 

How  did  these  scholars  produce  our  English  Bible? 
What  were  the  sources  of  their  materials?  Where 
were  these  materials  found?  What  is  their  character? 
Where  are  they  preserved?  How  were  they  used  by 
scholars  in  the  production,  for  example,  of  our  Re¬ 
vised  Version?  These  are  a  few  of  the  questions  that 
arise  in  the  minds  of  every  earnest,  thoughtful  student 
of  the  Bible.  They  can  be  answered  only  by  a  some¬ 
what  extended  description  and  by  references  to  many 
books  and  articles. 

These  questions  were  discussed  in  a  popular  vein 
in  a  series  of  eleven  articles  in  The  Sunday  School 
Times  during  the  first  three-quarters  of  the  year  1904. 
Their  publication  in  book  form  was  announced  for  the 
autumn  of  the  same  year.  But  long,  distressing  and 
fatal  illness  in  the  family  of  the  writer,  and  the  de¬ 
cision  to  expand  the  material  to  more  than  twice  its 
original  size,  necessitated  the  postponement  of  its 
publication. 

The  purpose  of  this  volume  is  to  present  in  as  con- 


VI 


Preface 

cise  and  popular  form  as  possible  a  description  of  the 
principal  versions  and  texts  of  the  Bible,  from  the 
earliest  known  translations  and  manuscripts  down 
through  the  middle  ages,  even  to  modern  times.  Now 
and  then  a  version  or  manuscript  is  prefaced  by  a 
statement  of  the  historical  background,  where  such  is 
required  to  bring  out  more  sharply  the  characteristics 
of  such  document.  This  has  been  done  especially 
in  the  discussion  of  the  early  versions  of  the  English 
Bible,  for  the  Bible  work  is  best  understood  if  we  ap¬ 
preciate  the  historical  conditions  of  those  days. 

The  division  of  the  book  into  three  parts  is  natural, 
though  it  may,  at  first,  seem  to  need  justification.  The 
earliest  versions  and  manuscripts  do  not  all  contain 
both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  In  fact,  the 
originals  of  the  two  being  written  in  different  lan¬ 
guages,  is  sufficient  ground  for  treating  them  in  two 
parts.  Then  the  existence  of  some  versions,  such  as 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  in  the  Old  Testament 
alone,  calls  for  such  a  division  of  the  theme.  It  soon 
becomes  apparent,  however,  that  the  line  between 
Parts  I  and  II  cannot  always  be  sharply  drawn ;  for, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Vulgate,  both  Testaments  are  in¬ 
cluded.  There  is  consequently  some  almost  unavoid¬ 
able  overlapping,  where  the  version  is  discussed  both 
in  Parts  I  and  II.  This  disadvantage  is  partly 
overcome  in  the  case  of  the  Vulgate  by  devoting  the 
chapter  in  Part  I  to  early  Latin  Old  Testament  manu¬ 
scripts,  and  the  Vulgate  down  to  the  ninth  century, 
and  that  in  Part  II  to  early  Latin  New  Testament 


Pr^ace 


Vll 


manuscripts  and  the  Vulgate  down  to  modern  times. 
In  Part  III,  “The  English  Bible,”  no  division  is  made 
between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  both  being 
treated  under  each  chapter. 

Some  portion  of  each  chapter  descriptive  of  a  ver¬ 
sion  is  given  to  an  account  of  the  principal  manu¬ 
scripts.  Only  such  facts  are  mentioned  as  serve  prom¬ 
inently  to  distinguish  those  documents  in  the  history 
of  the  text.  Of  some  of  the  great  manuscripts,  such 
as  the  Sinaitic,  a  few  essential  facts  regarding  its  dis¬ 
covery  are  given,  that  we  may  the  better  know  the 
cost  of  some  of  our  most  valued  treasures. 

The  illustrations  are  designed  to  set  vividly  before 
the  eyes  of  the  reader  facsimile  specimens  of  some  of 
the  earliest  and  most  important  texts  and  versions 
now  in  possession  of  the  great  libraries  of  the  world, 
and  of  some  private  collections.  These  have  been 
gathered  from  a  large  variety  of  sources,  as  is  indi¬ 
cated  in  the  “List  of  Illustrations.”  Full  acknowl¬ 
edgment  is  here  made  to  the  finns  and  individuals 
who  have  so  generously  granted  permission  to  repro¬ 
duce  them  for  this  volume.  The  names  of  such 
grantors  appear  in  full  in  the  “List  of  Illustrations.” 

The  Bibliography  gives  merely  a  selection  of  the 
literature  that  will  prove  most  helpful  in  further  in¬ 
vestigation  of  the  theme  of  each  chapter. 

The  Chronological  Table  is  intended  to  present 
only  such  dates  as  are  essential  in  the  best  scheme  for 
fastening  outline  facts  regarding  Bible  translations 
and  texts. 


Preface 


•  •  • 

Vlll 

The  diagrams  illustrative  of  the  relations  of  the 
versions  and  transcripts  present  to  the  eye  some  pat¬ 
ent  facts  that  should  be  remembered. 

The  author  acknowledges  his  indebtedness  to  many 
writers  and  authors  from  whom  the  material  of  this 
volume  has  been  gathered  and  reconstructed.  The 
Bibliography  cites  almost  in  full  the  sources  employed 
in  its  production. 

The  thanks  of  the  author  are  due  his  colleagues, 
Professor  Ernest  D.  Burton,  for  his  kindness  in  read¬ 
ing  the  manuscript  of  Part  II,  “The  New  Testament,” 
and  for  making  valuable  suggestions ;  and  to  Profes¬ 
sor  C.  W.  Votaw  for  reading  the  proofs  of  the  same, 
and  for  indicating  points  of  improvement  in  the  mat¬ 
ter  and  forms  of  statements.  The  author,  however, 
is  alone  responsible  for  the  method  of  treatment. 

To  the  Publishers,  who  have  spared  no  pains  in 
making  the  volume  attractive  in  form  and  make-up, 
there  is  also  due  a  debt  of  thanks. 

Ira  Maurice  Price. 

The  University  of  Chicago, 

New- Year.  1907. 


CONTENTS 

(Parentheses  enclose  Ill\istrations.) 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE  OF  TO-DAY. 

I.  Versions  in  use  to-day. — 2.  Reasons  for  these  ver¬ 
sions. — 3.  Variants  in  the  Old  Testament.  (* Amer¬ 
ican  Standard  Revised  Version,  specimen  page,  p.  4). 

— 4.  Variants  in  the  New  Testament. — 5.  Interpre¬ 
tative  marginal  readings. — 6.  Variant  readings  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts. — 7.  Variant  read¬ 
ings  from  ancient  versions. — 8.  Classes  of  marginal 
readings. — 9.  Reasons  for  the  variants  .  .  Pages  i-ia 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  BASES  OF  OUR  PRESENT  VERSIONS. 

10.  Available  sources. — ii.  The  Hebrew  and  Greek 
texts  used. — 12.  The  use  of  the  manuscripts.  (♦Co¬ 
dex  Sinaiticus  (S)  from  Mt.  Sinai,  p.  16). — 13.  The 
use  of  the  ancient  versions. — 14.  The  Targums  and 
quotations  in  ancient  writers. — 15.  The  revisers’ 
apparatus  criticus . Pages  13-19 

PART  I.  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 

CHAPTER  III. 

HEBREW  WRITING,  TEXT,  AND  MANUSCRIPTS. 

16.  The  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament. — 17.  Writing 
and  writers  in  the  Old  Testament. — 18.  Other  He¬ 
brew  documents  in  O.  T.  times. — 19.  Probable 


IX 


X 


Contents 


destruction  of  Hebrew  books. — 20.  Hebrew  lan¬ 
guage. — 21.  Origin  of  changes  in  the  Hebrew  text. 

— 22.  Divisions  of  the  Hebrew  text. — 23.  The  vocal¬ 
izing  of  the  Hebrew  text. — 24.  Hebrew  manu¬ 
scripts.  (*  St.  Petersburg  Hebrew  manuscript,  916 
A.  D.,  p.  34) — 25.  Printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament. — 26.  Published  list  of  Hebrew  variants. 
(*First  Hebrew  Bible  published  in  America  p.  38) 
. Pages  20-38 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  SAMARITAN  BIBLE:  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

27.  Samaritan  peculiarities. — 28.  Policy  that  originated 
the  Samaritans. — -29.  Composition  of  the  Samari¬ 
tans. — 30.  Manasseh’s  migration  to  Samaria. — 31. 

Mt.  Gerizim  a  center  of  Jehovah  worship.~32.  Pen¬ 
tateuch  the  Samaritan  Scriptures. — 33.  Samaritan 
manuscripts.  (* Jacob  ben  Aaron,  high  priest  of 
Samaritans  at  Nablous,  p.  46). — 34.  Printed  texts. — • 

35.  Significance  of  differences  between  the  Samari¬ 
tan  and  Hebrew  texts . Pages  39-48 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  GREEK  BIBLE!  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

36.  The  spread  of  Greek  civilization. — 37.  Jews  in  Alex¬ 
andria. — 38.  Prevalence  of  the  Septuagint. — 39. 
Time  of  translation  of  the  law. — 40.  Character  of 
the  translation. — 41.  Purpose  of  the  translation. — 
42.  Contents  of  the  Septuagint. — 43  Septuagint 
manuscripts  in  general.  (*Septuagint  papyrus  from 
Oxyrhynchus,  Egypt,  p.  56). — 44.  The  great  Sept¬ 
uagint  manuscripts.  (* Psalter  fragment  of  papyrus, 


Contents 


XI 


p.  58). — 45.  The  smaller  Septuagint  manuscripts. — 

46.  Printed  editions  of  the  Septuagint. — 47.  Value 
of  the  Septuagint . Pages  49-61 


CHAPTER  VI. 

RIVAL  GREEK  BIBLES,  AND  REVISIONS  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

48.  Reasons  for  rival  Greek  versions, — 49.  Aquila’s 
Greek  version.  (* Aquila’s  Version,  p.  64). — 50. 
Theodotion’s  Greek  version. — 51.  Symmachus’ 

Greek  version. — 52.  Origen  and  his  Hexapla. — 53. 
Origen’s  purpose  and  method. — 54.  Remains  of 
Origen’s  work. — 55.  Revisions  of  Eusebius,  Lucian, 
and  Hesychius. — 56.  Some  manuscripts  of  these  re¬ 
visions.  (*Codex  Marchalianus  (q.)  p.  72)  Pages  62-73 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  LATIN  BIBLES,  THE  VULGATE. 

57.  The  Roman  world  Latin,  and  Christian  Church 
Greek. — 58.  Early  Latin  versions. — 59.  Origin  of 
Old  Latin  texts. — 60.  Classification  of  Old  Latin 
texts. — 61.  Jerome’s  early  life  and  training.  (’’‘Jer¬ 
ome’s  Vulgate,  p.  78). — 62.  Jerome’s  revision 
work. — 63.  Jerome’s  translations. — 64.  Jerome’s 
personality. — 65.  Criticism  and  reception  of  Jer¬ 
ome’s  translation. — 66.  Adoption  of  Jerome’s  trans¬ 
lation. — 67.  Latin  Manuscripts.  (*Ashburnham 
Pentateuch,  p.  84) . Pages  74-84 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  SYRIAC  BIBLE,  AND  THE  PESHITTA. 

68.  The  demand  for  a  Syriac  Bible. — 69.  Theories  of 
the  origin  of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament. — 70. 
Earliest  traces  of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament. — 71. 


Xll 


Contents 


Contents  of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament. — 72.  Manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Syriac  Bible. — 73.  Some  critical  value. 
(*Syriac  Peshitta,  p.  90). — 74.  Printed  editions 
. Pages  85-91 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  TARGUMS:  JEWISH  PARAPHRASES. 

75.  The  Aramaic  of  Palestine. — 76.  Written  Targums.- — 

77.  The  first  Targums.  (*Targum  interlined  with 
Hebrew,  p.  94). — 78.  Targums  of  the  Pentateuch. — 

79.  Targums  of  the  Prophets. — 80.  Targums  of  the 
Hagiographa.— 81.  Some  value  of  the  Targums 
. Pages  92-98 


CHAPTER  X. 

OTHER  EASTERN  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

82.  Versions  for  far-away  provinces. — 83.  Coptic  ver¬ 
sions. — 84.  The  Ethiopic  version.  (*Ethiopic  text, 
p.  102). — 85.  The  Gothic  Version. — 86.  The  Georg¬ 
ian  version. — 87.  The  Slavonic  version. — 88.  The 
Armenian  version. — 89.  Arabic  versions.  Pages  99-109 


CHAPTER  XI. 

SUMMARY  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  VERSIONS. 

90.  Direct  and  indirect  translations. — 91.  Charts  of 
versions. — 92.  The  relation  of  Hebrew  to  other  ver¬ 
sions. — 93.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. — 94.  The 
Septuagint  and  Greek  versions. — 95.  The  Vulgate. 
(*Complutensian  Polyglot,  p.  116). — 96.  The  Syriac 
version. — 97.  The  Targums  ....  Pages  110-118 


Contents 


Xlll 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  APOCRYPHA. 

98.  The  existence  of  the  Apocryphal  Old  Testament. — 

99.  “Apocrypha”  defined. — 100.  The  apocryphal 
books. — loi.  Historical  and  legendary  Apocryphal 
books. — 102.  Prophetic  and  didactic  Apocryphal 
books.  (*Ecclesiasticus,  newly  discovered  Hebrew 
Manuscript,  p,  124). — 103.  The  Pseudepigraphical 
books. — 104.  The  Apocrypha’s  existence  and  ex¬ 
pulsion  from  the  English  Bible. — 105.  Reasons  for 
rejecting  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  .  Pages  1 19-130 


PART  II.  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

WRITING  AND  MANUSCRIPTS  IN  GENERAL. 

106.  Comparative  abundance  of  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment  material. — 107.  The  character  of  the  New 
Testament  writings. — 108.  Original  documents  all 
lost. — 109.  Bases  of  the  true  text.  (*Codex  Vati- 
canus  (B),  p.  136). — no.  Uncial  manuscripts. — 

III.  Fixing  the  date  of  uncial  manuscripts. — 112. 
Cursive  manuscripts.  (*  University  of  Chicago, 

New  Testament  Manuscript,  p.  140)  .  Pages  131-140 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

SOME  GREAT  NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS. 

1 13.  Uncials  and  cursives  designated. — 114.  The  perils 
through  which  manuscripts  pass. — 115.  Tischen- 
dorf’s  discovery  of  Codex  Sinaiticus.  (*St.  Catha¬ 
rine,  Convent  of,  at  Mt.  Sinai,  p.  144.) — 116.  Codex 


XIV 


Contents 


•  Sinaiticus  deposited  in  St.  Petersburg. — 117.  Char¬ 
acter  of  the  contents. — 118.  Codex  Alexandrinus 
(A) — history.  (*Codex  Alexandrinus  (A),  p.  148.) — 

1 19.  Codex  Alexandrinus  (A) — contents. — 120.  Co¬ 
dex  Vaticanus  (B) — history. -—121.  Codex  Vati- 
canus  (B) — contents. — 122.  Codex  Ephraem  (C). 
(*Codex  Ephraemi  (C),  p.  154) — 123.  Codex  Bezae 
(D). — 124.  Other  New  Testament  manuscripts 
.  Pages  141-157 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  OLD  LATIN  AND  THE  VULGATE. 

125.  New  Testament  versions  and  their  evidence. — 126. 

Old  Latin  Texts. — 127.  Manuscripts  of  Old  Latin 
Gospels.  (*01d  Latin  Gospels,  p.  162.) — 128. 
Other  Old  Latin  manuscripts.  (* Codex  Claromonta- 
nus,  p.  164.) — 129.  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate  side  by 
side. — 130.  Latin  texts  mixed.  (*Codex  Amiatinus, 
p.  166.) — 13 1.  Cassiodorus’  revision  and  other 
peculiar  texts. — 132.  Revisions  of  Alcuin  and  Theo- 
dulf.  (*Alcuin’s  revision  of  Vulgate,  p.  168.) — 133. 
Decline  in  text  purity. — 134.  Revisions  in  Paris. — 

135.  The  official  Vulgate  of  the  Council  of  Trent. — 

136.  The  Clementine  text  of  1592. — 137.  Vulgate’s 
influence.~i38.  Preparations  for  a  critical  edition 

of  the  Vulgate  . Pages  158-175 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  SYRIAC  AND  OTHER  EASTERN  VERSIONS. 

139.  The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian. — 140.  “The  Gospel  of 
the  Separated;’’  and  The  Peshitta. — 141.  Traces  of 
Old  Syriac  epistles. — 142.  Revisions  of  the  Syriac 


Contents 


XV 


Bible.  (*Syriac  Palimpsest  from  Mt.  Sinai,  p.  182.) 

— 143.  The  Palestinian  version. — 144.  Egyptian 
versions. — 145.  The  Armenian  version. — 146.  The 
Ethiopia  version. — 147.  The  Gothic  version.  (The 
Gothic  Gospels,  p.  187.) — 148.  Arabic,  Georgian, 
and  Slavonic  versions . Pages  176-188 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  GROUPING  AND  CLASSIFICATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 
VERSIONS,  AND  OTHER  WITNESSES. 

149.  The  Textus  Receptus.  (*Codex  Bezae  (D),  p.  190.) 

— 150.  Classification  of  manuscripts.  (*Bishop  B. 

F.  Westcott,  p.  192.) — 151.  The  Syrian  group. — 152. 

The  Western  group. — 153.  The  Alexandrian  group. 
(*Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  p.  194.) — 154.  The  Neutral  group. 

— 155-  Westcott  and  Hort’s  Greek  New  Testa¬ 
ment  .  Pages  189-196 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

HOW  MANUSCRIPTS  AND  VERSIONS  ARE  USED. 

156.  The  material  at  hand. — 157.  Textual  and  higher 
criticism. — 158.  Necessity  of  textual  criticism. — 

159.  Significance  of  variations. — 160.  Some  rules 
for  textual  critics. — 161.  Rules  for  textual  critics 
continued. — 162.  Rules  for  textual  critics,  con¬ 
cluded. — 163.  Our  Greek  New  Testament  result  of 
application  of  these  rules . Pages  197-206 

PART  III.  ENGLISH  VERSIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

EARLY  ENGLISH  MANUSCRIPTS. 

164.  Christianity  in  early  England. — 165.  Caedmon. — 

166.  Aldhelm  and  Egbert. — 167.  Bede. — 168.  King 
Alfred. — 169.  The  Lindisfarne  Gospels,  (*Cotton 


XVI 


Contents 


Manuscript,  or  Lindisfarne  Gospels,  p.  212.) — 170. 
Tenth  century  Gospels  and  the  Old  Testament. — 

171.  The  Ormulum. — 172.  English  Psalters  of  the 
fourteenth  century. — 173.  Intellectual  awakening 
of  England  in  the  fourteenth  century  .  Pages  207-217 


CHAPTER  XX. 

WYCLIFFE’s  version  of  the  BIBLE. 

174.  John  Wycliffe.  (* John  Wycliffe,  p.  218.) — 175.  The 
fourteenth  century. — 176.  Wycliffe’s  place  in  the 
controversies  of  the  day. — 177.  Wycliffe’s  resolu¬ 
tion. — 178.  Wycliffe’s  translation  of  the  Latin 
Bible.  (*Wycliffe’s  Bible,  specimen  page,  p.  222.) — 

179.  Wycliffe’s  plan  for  religious  extension. — 180. 
Revision  of  Wycliffe’s  Bible. — 181.  Adoption  of  the 
revision  of  Wycliffe’s  version. — 182.  Some  char¬ 
acteristics  of  Wycliffe’s  version. — 183.  The  Lord’s 
Prayer  in  three  tongues  . Pages  218-229 

CHAPTER  XXL 

TYNDALE’s  version  of  the  BIBLE. 

184.  Wycliffe’s  version  in  the  fourteenth  century. 
(★William  Tyndale,  p.  230) — 185.  Fifteenth  century 
regeneration. — 186.  Progressive  events  of  the  fif¬ 
teenth  century. — 187.  Tyndale’s  birth  and  educa¬ 
tion. — 188.  Tyndale  in  London. — 189.  Tyndale  at 
Hamburg,  Wittenberg,  and  Cologne. — 190.  Tyn¬ 
dale  at  Worms.  (*Tyndale’s  New  Testament,  p. 

238.) — 19 1.  Reception  of  Tyndale’s  New  Testament 
in  England. — 192.  Success  of  Tyndale’s  opponents 
in  England. — 193.  Reasons  for  opposition  to  Tyn¬ 
dale’s  work. — 194.  Tyndale’s  last  published  trans¬ 
lations. — 195.  Tyndale’s  arrest  at  Antwerp,  im- 


Contents 


xvii 


prisonment  and  martyrdom. — 196.  Crowning  work 
of  Tyndale. — 197.  Tyndale’s  influence  on  the  version 
of  1611,  and  on  English  style  ....  Pages  230-246 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

VERSIONS  CLOSE  TO  TYNDALE’s. 

198.  Myles  Coverdale.  (*Myles  Coverdale,  p.  248.) — 

199.  Appearance  of  Coverdale’s  Bible.  (♦Cover- 
dale’s  Bible,  p.  250). — 200.  Character  of  Coverdale’s 
Bible. — 201.  Tyndale  and  Coverdale  compared. — 

202.  John  Rogers’  “Thomas  Matthew’’  Bible. — 203, 
Royal  favor  for  the  Matthew  Bible. — 204.  Coverdale 
engaged  to  edit  another  version. — 205.  “The  Great 
Bible’’  printed.  (*The  Great  Bible,  p.  254.) — 206. 
Contents  of  the  Great  Bible. — 207.  Public  use  of 
the  Great  Bible. — 208.  Influence  of  the  Great  Bible. 

— 209.  Taverner’s  Bible . Pages  247-259 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE  GENEVAN,  BISHOPS’,  AND  DOUAI  VERSIONS. 

210.  The  anti-reformation  movement. — 21 1.  Edward 
VI. — 212.  Mary’s  persecutions  and  death. — 213. 

The  Geneva  New  Testament. — 214.  The  Geneva 
Bible.  (*The  Geneva  Bible,  p.  264.) — 215.  Its  popu¬ 
larity  and  use. — 216.  Appearance  of  the  Bishops’ 
Bible.  (*The  Bishops’  Bible,  p.  266.) — 217.  Char¬ 
acter  of  the  Bishops’  Bible. — 218.  The  Rheims 
and  Douai  version.  (*The  Rheims  New  Testament, 
p.  270.) — 219.  Character  of  the  Douai  Bible. 
. Pages  260-271 


XVlll 


Contents 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION  OF  l6ll. 

220  Queen  Elizabeth’s  reign. — 221.  James  I  and  Hamp¬ 
ton  Court  Conference. — 222.  Steps  toward  a  re¬ 
vision. — 223.  Organization  of  the  revisers. — 224. 
Work  doing  and  done.  (The  Authorized  Version  of 
1611,  p.  278.) — 225.  Sources  of  the  version  of  1611. 

' — 226.  Popularity  of  the  Authorized  Version. — 227. 
Abortive  attempt  at  revision  by  Long  Parliament. — 

228.  Private  revisions  and  additions  to  the  Author¬ 
ized  Version. — 229.  The  sway  of  the  Authorized 
Version  . Pages  272-282 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE  REVISED  VERSION. 

230  Eighteenth  century  conditions. — 231.  Private  trans¬ 
lations  and  texts. — 232.  Formation  of  a  Revision 
Committee. — 233.  Organization  and  beginning  of 
work. — 234.  Organization  of  the  American  Revision 
Committee. — 235.  Completion  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. — 236.  Reception  given  the  Revised  New 
Testament. — 237.  Completion  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment. — 238.  Texts  at  the  basis  of  the  Revised 
Version. — 239.  Improvements  in  the  translations. 
— 240.  Improvement  in  language. — 241.  Improve¬ 
ments  in  make-up  or  form. — 242.  Reasons  for 
adoption  of  the  Revised  Version.  (*  American 

Standard  Revised  Version,  Title-page,  p.  298.) — 
243.  The  American  Committee  and  its  restrictions. 
— 244.  The  American  Appendix  to  the  Revised 
Version. — 245.  Anglicisms  and  Archaisms  in  the 
1885  edition. — 246.  Marginal  references. — 247.  The 
American  Committee’s  task. — 248.  Contract  with 


Conte7its 


XIX 


Nelson  &  Sons, — 249,  The  issuance  of  the  American 
Standard  Edition  of  the  Revised  Version. — 250. 

The  reception  of  the  American  Edition  .  Pages  283-305 


Bibliography . 307-314 

Chronological  Table . 315-319 

Topical  Index . 321-328 

Scripture  Index . 329,330 


.•  ?•  iff  - 

V  :..-!.5'^  . 

■  '■^  1.  ■■  ••:-'ji’  .' 


. .  V’^'; 


:?:^^}-  ...-^  v-5 

•  "  •  v  .  A-*  •.*, 


/v'S 

•'  i 
.■j 


'  k.1 


.0 


ILLUSTRATIONS  AND  DIAGRAMS 

[Numbers  refer  to  pages  ;  arranged  in  alphabetical  order.] 


FACING 

PAGE 

Alcuin’s  Revision  of  the  Vulgate . i68 

From  Anderson  and  Rule,  “Biblical  Monuments” 

Alexandrinus  (A),  Codex . 148 


From  “The  Palseographical  Society's"  Facsimiles,  by 
permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 

American  Standard  Revised  Version,  specimen  page  .  4 

By  permission  Thos.  Nelson  and  Sons,  publishers 

American  Standard  Revised  Version,  Title-page  .  .  .  298 

By  permission  Thos.  Nelson  and  Sons,  publishers 

Amiatinus  (A),  Codex,  best  Vulgate  Manuscript  .  .  .  166 
From  “The  Palasographical  Society"  Facsimiles,  by  per¬ 
mission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 


Aquila’s  Version,  Palimpsest . 64 

By  permission  of  Cambridge  University  Press 

Ashburnham  Pentateuch . 84 


From  “The  Palaeographical  Society's"  Facsimiles,  by 
permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 

Authorized  Version  of  1611,  specimen  page  .  .  .  .  278 


From  "Bible  Illustrations,"  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

Bezae  (D),  Codex . 190 

From  "The  Palaeographical  Society's"  Facsimiles,  by 
permi.ssion  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 

Bishops'  Bible,  specimen  page . 266 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,"  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 


Catharine,  St.,  Convent  of,  at  Mt.  Sinai . 144 

From  “Bible  Treasury,"  by  permission  of  Thos.  Nelson 
and  Sons,  publishers 

Claromontanus  (d),  Codex . 164 

From  “The  Palaeographical  Society's"  Facsimiles,  by 
permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 


XXI 


xxii  Illustrations  and  Diagrams 


FACING 

PAGE 

Complutensian  Polyglot,  specimen  page . ii6 

From  “The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,”  Vol.  Ill,  Funk  and 
Wagnalls,  publishers;  by  permission 

Cottonianus  (D),  Codex . 212 

From  Anderson  and  Rule,  “Biblical  Monuments” 

Coverdale,  Myles,  portrait . 248 

From  Hoare’s  “Evolution  of  the  English  Bible.”  By 
permission  of  E.  P.  Dutton  &  Co.,  publishers 

Coverdale  Bible,  specimen  page . 250 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  press 

Ecclesiasticus,  new  Hebrew  Manuscript  of . 124 

From  “Facsimiles  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus,”  by 
permission  of  Clarendon  Press 

Ephrasmi  (C),  Codex,  Palimpsest . 154 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

Ethiopic  Text,  specimen  page . 102 

From  Anderson  and  Rule,  “Biblical  Monuments” 

Geneva  Bible,  specimen  page . 264 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

Gothic  Gospels . 187 

From  “The  Palaeographical  Society’s”  Facsimiles,  by 
permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 

Great  Bible,  specimen  page . 254 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

Hebrew  Bible,  first  published  in  America . 38 

From  Report  of  U.  S.  National  Museum  of  1896;  by 
permission 

Hebrew  Papyrus,  Pre-Massoretic .  Frontispiece 

From  “Proceedings  of  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,” 

Vol.  XXV 

Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  portrait .  194 

From  “Life  and  Letters  of  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort,” 

The  Macmillan  Company;  by  permission 

Jacob  ben  Aaron,  High  Priest  of  Samaritans  at  Nablus  46 

From  collection  of  the  Rev.  W.  E.  Barton 


Illustrations  and  Diagra^ns 


XXlll 


FACING 

PAGE 

Latin  Bible  of  Jerome . 78 

From  "Bible  Treasury,"  by  permission  of  Thos.  Nelson 
and  Sons,  publishers 

Marchalianus  (Q),  Codex . 72 

From  Kenyon  "Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts," 
by  permission  of  the  author 

Old  Latin  Gospels,  Codex  Vercellensis,  specimen  page  .  162 

From  "Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

Psalter  Fragment  of  Papyrus . 58 

From  "Bible  Treasury,"  by  permission  of  Thos.  Nelson 
and  Sons,  publishers 

Rheims  New  Testament,  specimen  page . 270 

From  “Bible  Illustrations,"  by  permission  of  Oxford 
University  Press 

St.  Petersburg  Hebrew  Codex,  916  A. D . 34 

From  Weir,  "History  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old 
Testament,"  by  permission  of  the  author 

Septuagint  Papyrus  of  Third  Century . 56 

From  "Biblical  World,"  by  permission  University  of 
Chicago 

Sinaiticus  (S),  Codex .  16 

From  "The  Palaeographical  Society’s"  Facsimiles  by 


permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 

Syriac  Peshitta . 90 

From  Anderson  and  Rule,  "  Biblical  Monuments," 

Syriac  Codex,  Palimpsest . 182 

From  "Studia  Sinaitica,"  X,  by  permission  of  Mrs.  A.  S. 

Lewis,  the  author 

Targum  in  alternate  verses . 94 

From  "Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  Vol.  Ill,  Funk  &  Wag- 
nails,  publishers;  by  permission. 

Tyndale,  William,  portrait . 230 

Tyndale’s  New  Testament,  specimen  page . 238 


From  "Bible  Illustrations,”  by  permission  Oxford 
University  Press 

University  of  Chicago,  N.  T.  Manuscript . 140 


XXIV 


Illustrations  and  Diagrams 


FACING 

PAGE 

Vaticanus  (B),  Codex .  136 

From  Kenyon’s  “Handbook  to  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,”  by  permission  of  the  author 

Westcott,  Brooke  Foss,  portrait . 192 

From  a  photograph  in  possession  of  author 

Wycliffe,  John,  portrait .  218 

Wycliffe  Bible,  specimen  pages . 222 

From  “The  Palaeographical  Society’s”  Facsimiles  by 
permission  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  Editor 


DIAGRAMS 

Form  of  Origen’s  Hexapla . on  67 

The  Relation  of  the  Rival  Greek  Bibles  and  Revisions 

to  the  Septuagint .  72 

The  Sources  in  General  of  the  Minor  Eastern  Versions  105 

The  General  Relations  of  the  Ancient  Versions  to  the 

Hebrew .  in 

The  Beginnings  of  Modern  Versions,  Early  in  the  Six¬ 
teenth  Century .  245 

Principal  Sources  Employed  by  the  Translators  of 

King  James  Version  of  1611 .  276 

Main  Sources  of  Old  Testament  of  the  Revised  Ver- 

op.  286 


Sion 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE  AND  ITS  MARGINAL  READINGS 

I.  The  English  Bible  holds  a  pre-eminent  position 
in  the  worlds  of  religion  and  literature.  For  three 
centuries  it  has  easily  and  gracefully  occupied  such 
a  place  among  English-speaking  peoples.  Its  power 
and  influence  to-day  permeate  every  avenue  of  re¬ 
ligious  and  literary  life.  Its  increasing  importance 
has  required  that  it  represent  the  best  scholarship 
and  the  best  statements  of  its  truths  for  the  popular 
mind  of  this  day.  Endeavors  to  answer  these  re¬ 
quirements  have  provided  us  with  more  than  one 
version  of  the  English  Bible.  In  fact,  students  and 
readers  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  confronted  to-day 
with  several  editions  or  versions  of  the  Bible,  each 
claiming  superior  qualities  of  its  own.  The  presence 
of  these  several  versions  is  not  an  unmitigated  evil  for 
most  Bible  readers.  They  rather  confuse  than  illu-* 
minate  the  questions  that  touch  the  origin  of  The 
Book.  Some  of  the  versions  that  lie  all  about  us, 
and  are  found  in  every  community,  are  The  Author¬ 
ized  or  King  James  Version,  The  Revised  Version 
of  1885,  and  The  American  Standard  Revised  Version 
of  1901.  In  addition  to  these  we  find  several  trans¬ 
lations  and  editions,  which  are  the  products  either 
of  private  enterprise  or  of  Bible  translation  societies. 

I 


2 


The  E7iglisJi  Bible 

Some  of  these  are  Spurrell’s  ‘‘A  Translation  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  from  the  Original  He¬ 
brew;”  Fenton’s  “The  Bible  in  Modern  English;”  and 
the  translations  of  the  American  Bible  Union.  Then 
there  are  some  editions  which  have  for  their  purpose 
the  presentation  of  the  Authorized  or  Revised  Ver¬ 
sions  in  an  improved  literary  form,  with  introductions 
and  notes.  Notable  specimens  of  this  kind  of  work  are 
found  in  The  Temple  Bible,  an  arrangement  of  the 
Authorized  Version;  and  Moulton’s  “The  Modern 
Reader’s  Bible,”  a  literary  distribution  of  the  matter 
of  the  Revised  Version  of  1885. 

2.  An  examination  and  comparison  of  these  sev¬ 
eral  versions  point  distinctly  to  the  reasons  for  their 
production.  The  translators  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  respectively 
into  English  had  no  small  task.  They  were  obliged 
to  translate  texts  that  had  been  copied  over  and  over 
again  by  the  hand  of  man  for  hundreds,  and,  in  the 
case  of  the  Old  Testament,  for  thousands,  of  years. 
There  must  inevitably  have  been  mistakes  by  scribes 
and  copyists  that  have  never  been  corrected.  No  one 
of  us  could  copy  by  hand  ten  pages  of  manuscript 
without  making  some  errors.  We  would  at  least  for¬ 
get  to  dot  some  “i’s”  or  cross  some  “t’s”;  but  the 
most  of  us  would  leave  out  words,  write  some  words 
twice,  leave  out  some  lines,  repeat  some  lines,  and 
make  many  other  blunders  that  would  cause  our  copy 
to  vary  from  the  original.  Just  these  things  have 
happened  with  the  manuscripts  of  the  Bible. 


Variants  in  the  Old  Testament  3 

Fortunately,  at  different  periods  in  the  history  of 
Bible  manuscripts,  translations  were  made  into  other 
languages.  Many  of  these  translations,  such  as  the 
Greek  and  Latin  and  Syriac,  are  now  available  for 
scholars.  By  their  help  we  can  often  detect  and  locate 
an  error  in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text,  and  thus  give 
a  better  rendering  into  English  of  what  we  estimate 
was  the  original  text.  Such  variations  and  helps  are 
noted  in  the  margins  of  our  Revised  Version,  and 
constitute  a  valuable  source  of  aid  in  comprehending 
the  real  meaning  of  the  original  text. 

3.  The  quantity  of  these  variations  is  sometimes 
alarming  until  one  begins  to  understand  the  close 
relation  they  sustain  to  a  true  conception  of  the  text. 
As  a  rule  the  more  the  marginal  notes,  the  better  a 
text  is  understood.  They  are  a  most  welcome  light 
to  those  of  us  who  wish  better  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  some  obscure  passage  in  the  text ;  and 
also  an  index  to  the  industry  of  scholars  in  ascer¬ 
taining  the  readings  of  the  text  when  corrected  by 
the  various  ancient  translations.  So  that  we  should 
always  regard  with  careful  discrimination  every  mar¬ 
ginal  note  if  we  are  endeavoring  to  find  out  just  what 
scholars  have  concluded  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  text 
which  we  are  reading  or  studying. 

These  variant  readings  are  not  confined  either  to 
the  Old  or  to  the  New  Testament,  but  are  found  in 
every  part  of  the  Bible.  A  few  examples  may  best 
illustrate  this  point :  In  Genesis  6 :  3  wc  find,  “My 
spirit  shall  not  strive  with  man  for  ever the  margin 


4  The  English  Bible 

reads  for  “  strive,”  Or,  rule  in “  for  that  he  also  is 
flesh,”  has  as  its  alternative  in  the  margin,  “  Or,  in 
their  going  astray  they  are  flesh.”  The  margin  then 
reads  the  verse  in  this  way :  ‘‘  My  spirit  shall  not  rule 
in  man  [kind]  for  ever,  for  in  their  going  astray  they 
are  [have  become]  flesh  ” — quite  a  different  conception 
from  that  in  the  text,  either  of  the  Authorized  or  the 
Revised  Version.  Genesis  49:  10,  “  Until  Shiloh  come; 
And  unto  him  shall  the  obedience  of  the  peoples  be,” 
has  a  margin  as  follows :  “  Or,  till  he  come  to  Shiloh ; 
having  the  obedience  of  the  peoples.”  Again,  in  that 
passage  that  describes  Samuel’s  first  anointing  of 
Saul,  I  Samuel  9 :  20,  we  find  in  the  text,  “  And  for 
whom  is  all  that  is  desirable  in  Israel?  Is  it  not  for 
thee,  and  for  all  thy  father’s  house?”  the  margin 
reads,  Or,  on  whom  is  all  the  desire  of  Israel?  Is 
it  not  on  thee,  and  on  all,  etc.  ?  ”  That  difficult  pas¬ 
sage  in  2  Samuel  5 :  8  presents  some  interesting  varia¬ 
tions,  “  And  David  said  on  that  day.  Whosoever  smit- 
eth  the  Jebusites,  let  him  get  up  to  the  water-course, 
and  smite  the  lame  and  the  blind,  that  are  hated  of 
David’s  soul the  margin  reads,  ‘‘  Or,  and  as  for  the 
lame  and  the  blind,  that  are  hated  of  David’s  soul — ;” 
“  Another  reading  is,  that  hate  David’s  soul.”  The 
text  goes  on  to  say :  “  Wherefore  they  say.  There  are 
the  blind  and  the  lame ;  he  cannot  come  into  the 
house the  margin  says,  “  Or,  The  blind  and  the 
lame  shall  not  come  into  the  house.”  These  margins 
show  the  variant  translations  of  the  revisers  of  the 
original  Hebrew  describing  this  event.  In  Isaiah 


1  ‘J2 


» The 
Sept  and 
Syriac 
have.  <t 
t/ullurk 
thru'  i/uirs 
vUl 

*0r  iktn 


3  Oi.  lent 


A<  ( (T  ;• 
i<n-  to 
uiiol  li>  r 
rt'rfil  ifiu' 
rhoniK 

tU'ltOhf.  (  ( 

711’t 


1.  samtkl 


2. 


Samuel  given  in  •?«  ho»  ;>h  FTnnnnli'^  Snng  of  Thank-pi \  ing  The  Sin  of  Kli’s  Sons 


jirul  his  vfiw  22  Hut  llannnh 
went,  nut  u]! ;  fur  slie  siml  unto 
tier  linsband.  /  /<•///  ;/'■/  fid  up 
until  tlie  child  be  \ve;nV-d  ;  and 
then  1  will  “  brin;,'  him,  that  he 
may  appear  before  Jehovah,  and 
‘there  abide  for  ever.  2i'>  And 
'  hJkanah  her  husband  said  unto 
lier.  Do  what  seemeth  Ihee  p'iiod; 
tarry  until  thou  have  weaned 
liim;  onlj'  ''Jehovah  establish  his 
word  So  the  woin.in  tarried  and 
+;ave  her  son  suck,  until  she 
weaned  liim.  21  And  when  she 
had  weaned  him,  '  she  took  him 
up  with  her.  w  itji  '  three  bullocks, 
and  one  cjihah  of  me.il,  ami'  a 
'  bottle  of  wine,  and  brought  him 
unto  -'the  liouse  of  Jehovah  in 
Shiloh;  and  the  child  waa’yount;. 

25  And  "they  slew  the  bullock, 
and  *  brought  the  cliild  to  Kli. 

2()  And  she  said.  Oh,  my  lord,  '  as 
thy  soul  liveth,  my  lord,  I  am  the 
woman  tliat  stood  by  thee  here, 
prayini!  unto  Jehovah.  27  '  For 
lliia  child  I  [irayed;  atid  .leliovah 
hath  piven  me  my  petition  which 
]  a.sked  of  him:  2,S  '  t  lierrd’ori' also 

1  have  'planted  him  to  Jeho¬ 
vah;  as  long  as  lie  liveth  he  is 
praiited  to  Jehovah.  And  he 
worshi|iped  .leliovah  there. 
iy  .4nd  Hannah  prayed,  and 
w  saiil  : 

My  heart  exultelli  in  .leliovah: 

*  My  horn  is  e.xalted  in  Jeho¬ 
vah; 

My  mouth  is  'cnlarped  over 
mine  enemies . 

llecause  "1  rejoit  e  in  thy  s.d- 
vat  ion. 

2  '"I'lH.i'e  is  none  holy  as  ,lcho- 

vah  ; 

For  '''lh(•^o  is  none  besides 
t  bee, 

'Neither  is  there  any  rock  like 
our  tiod. 

3  J'lilk  no  more  S(i  ixceediiip 

proud  ly  , 

'Let  not  ai  ropaiK  come  out  of 
your  nioiit h  ; 

'  Fur  .lelitivali  is  a  ( iod  ol  k  now  1- 
edpe, 

"■'And  by  him  actions  are 
weiplied 

4  '  'I'he  bows  of  the  iiiiphty  men 

are  broken  : 

"  Alnl  they  that  sliimbleil  are 
pirded  w  it  li  St  reiipt  h. 
r»  They  th.it  were  full  have  hired 
out  Iheinsch  es  for  bia  ,id  ; 

2bf 


And  they  that  ware  hungry 

have  ceased  to  tin nrp  r  :  ;  Or  /.j.-, 

"Yea,  the  bairen  hath  borne 
seven; 

.-\iid  -'she  that  h.ith  many 
children  lanpuisheth 

G  “Jehovah  killeth,  and  maketh 
alive 

''He  brinpoth  down  to  Sheol 
and  brinpi  th  up. 

7  '■Jehovah  ■  maketh  poor,  and 
maketh  rich  . 

''  He  brinpeth  low*  he  also  lifteth 

U|l. 

S  'He  i.dseth  uji  the  iioor  cult 
of  the  du>t, 

■'’He  lifteth  up  the  needy  troiii 
the  diinphill, 

"To  make  them  sit  with 
princes. 

And  inherit  the  throne  r'f 
_  plory 

'■  For  the  pillars  of  the  earth  are 
.lehovah'-;. 

.■\iid  he  hath  Set  the  world 
upon  them. 

'.I  'He  will  keep  the  fett  of  his 

^  holy  ones  ;  •  o, 

'  Hut  the  wicked  shall  fie  put  'v.,,.ii,r 
to  silence  in  darkness;  rei.in..  n. 

'  I'Yu’  by  slrelipth  sh.ill  no  man 
prevail. 

If)  '"They  t  hat  strive  w  it  h  Jehovah 
sh.dl  be  broken  to  jiieees: 

'’.\paiiist  them  vv-ill  he  thunder 
in  heaven  : 

“.lehov.ili  will  judge  the  ends 
of  1  he  earth  : 

''.\iid  he  will  pive  stiaiipth 
unto  his  kinp. 

".Vnd  exalt  the  horn  i.f  his 
anointed. 

11  And  FI kaiiali  W(  lit  to  '  H.i- 

niah  to  hjs  house.  '.And  I  he 
child  did  niiiiisler  unto  .b  hov  ,di 
belore  Fli  the  |Uiesl. 

12  Now  the  soii.s  of  F-li  were 
base  men;  ''they  knew  iml 
.)eliov;di.  Id  “.\nd  the  ciislom 

of  the  priests  with  the  peo|de  ‘ 

vviis,  I  hat,  w  Ill'll  any  man  olleied 
s.ieri  lice,  the  priest  s  serv  ,11  it  came, 
w  hile  the  llesli  w;is  boilinv,  w  ith  li'/.' 
a  llesli-hook  of  three  teeth  in  Ins 
hand:  11  atid  he  struck'  it  into 
the  Jiaii,  or  kettle,  or  (iildri'ii, 
or  pot  ;  all  that  the  llesh-liook 
liroupht  up  the  priest  took  Ihete- 
with.  So  they  did  in  Shiloh 
illilo  all  llie  Lraehles  that  eaiiie 
thither.  1  .'i  Yea.  befi  .re  ’  t  liev 
but  111  the  1.11,  ihe  priesl  s  sirvam 


"  1  k  j 
vpr  1 1.  2^ 

'  Nhtii  A- 

1<>  n 

''  vt-r  IT 

*  N  mu 
'.I.  I'' . 

I»tul  1.'  5, 

/  t  h  4  3,  4  . 

Josh  1 
“  Lev  1 
Lk  '.i  2.’ 

’  2  K  :  J.  4. 

4  \ I  r  1 1  - !'{ 

‘  >er  II. 

H. iif  3  J  ; 
}'a  72  2ih 
\cf  J-l" 

I. k  I  4b-  1  • 

1  JJ 
IT  ,  ,!ol»  117 
l.'> ,  }’S  K' 
17 

'■  Is  12  2,  :i 
Kx  I.*,  n 

2  S  -22  ' 

'  l»eul  s: 

.«•  .tl 

*  I'rov  H  13 
'IS  |«  7  . 

1  K  15  3‘J 
f'rov  Mi. 

2  .  -24  12 

^  Pa  J7  I  d  . 
40  y 

’  I’S  IS  ftl 

lUi.  n 

32-  14 

>'  1 T.  I  n  ; 

KuUj  l  l> 

'  Jer  I .  '.I 
.  "licMii 

,  2  K  [. 

7  ,  f^cv  1 

>'  la  20  iy 
'  Iftul  ^ 

17.  Ik 

«  ,l(ih  6  11. 

.Ins  4  Ml 
'  .lob  42  1')- 
j.  .  I's  7s, 

/  2  S  7  h  ; 
I'.iri  2  4K; 
Jd'k  -2  f. 


IN  .f 
I's  111  II. 
12  ,  I  Pet 


4  'm‘|  h  12 
'  Ph  .;J  Ml, 
17 

Kx  r,  f.; 
Ph  2  fi 
’■  «  h  7  JO. 

•  Ps  M*  I 
1 1 

*'  ps  Ni  II. 

b.  b.  Ml 
:  I .  'i : 

i's  21  1,7 
■/  IV  .'l 
>  li  1  1.  I'.i 

*  '  V  r  I-  .  eh. 
l  2b 

'  .kr  2  K  , 

0  'f.  I. 

“  Lev,  7  '.n»- 
31 


l.iv  3 
lo 


Page  of  fhe  .'Ximrii  an  Staiulard  Revised  X’ersion.  show  ing  Margin. il 
Relerences  ancl  X’ariant  Readings 


9. 


Variants  in  the  New  Testament  5 

there  are  many  and  striking  variant  readings.  In 
chapter  8 :  20,  we  read :  “  if  they  speak  not  according 
to  this  word,  surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them 
the  margin  says,  “  Or,  surely  according  to  this  word 
shall  they  speak  for  whom  there  is  no  morning.” 
Isaiah  23:  13  reads:  “this  people  was  not;  the  As¬ 
syrian  founded  it  for  them  that  dwell  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness  the  margin  reads :  “  This  people  is  no  more ; 
the  Assyrian  hath  appointed  it  for  the  beasts  of  the 
wilderness.”  Isaiah  40 :  9,  “  O  thou  that  tellest  good 
tidings  to  Jerusalem;”  margin,  “Or,  O  Jerusalem, 
that  bringest  good  tidings.”  Isaiah  53:  i,  ‘^Who  hath 
believed  our  message?”  margin  for  “our  message,” 
“  Or,  that  which  we  have  heard.” 

4.  The  New  Testament  carries  on  its  margins  scores 
of  important  variations  in  translation  from  that  in  the 
text.  Matthew  2 :  2  reads :  “  Where  is  he  that  is 
born  King  of  the  Jews?”  the  margin  says,  “Or, 
where  is  the  King  of  the  Jews  that  is  born?”  In 
Matthew  25:  41,  we  find,  “Depart  from  me,  ye 
cursed ;  ”  but  in  the  margin,  “  Or,  Depart  from  me 
under  a  curse.”  Luke  i  :  4,  “  that  thou  mightest 
know  the  certainty  concerning  the  things  wherein 
thou  wast  instructed ;  ”  the  last  phrase  reads  in  the 
margin,  “  Or,  which  thou  wast  taught  by  word  of 
mouth.”  Luke  i :  35,  last  half :  “  The  holy  thing 
which  is  begotten  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God  ;  ” 
margin,  “  Or,  that  which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called 
holy,  the  Son  of  God.”  John  1:9,“  There  was  the 
true  light,  even  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man, 


6 


The  English  Bible 

coming  into  the  world ;  ”  margin,  “  Or,  the  true  light, 
which  lighteth  every  man,  was  coming ;  ”  another 
marginal  rendering  is,  Or,  every  man  as  he  com- 
eth.”  Paul’s  epistles  have  striking  variant  render¬ 
ings  of  the  original  Greek :  i  Corinthians  2 :  13,  com¬ 
bining  spiritual  things  with  spiritual  words ;  ”  the 
margin  reads,  “  Or,  interpreting  spiritual  things  to 
spiritual  men.”  2  Corinthians  2:  17,  “corrupting  the 
word  of  God ;  ”  but  in  the  margin,  “  Or,  making  mer¬ 
chandise  of  the  word  of  God.”  Colossians  i :  2  reads, 
“  to  the  saints  and  faithful  brethren  in  Christ  that 
are  at  Colossse ;”  but  in  the  margin  we  find,  “  Or,  to 
those  that  are  at  Colossse,  holy  and  faithful  brethren 
in  Christ.” 

These  variant  marginal  renderings  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  sufficient  evidence  to  the  thought¬ 
ful  reader  that  there  may  be  more  than  one  correct 
translation  of  the  original  text  as  we  have  it  to-day. 
These  variant  renderings  furnish  us  with  one  impor¬ 
tant  class  of  alternative  readings  in  our  present  day 
versions  of  the  English  Bible. 

5.  A  second  class  of  marginal  notes  consists  of 
those  that  are  interpretations  or  explanations  of  the 
original  Hebrew  or  Greek ;  some  give  a  literal  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Hebrew,  the  meaning  of  proper  names, 
an  explanation  of  some  obscure  linguistic  idiom,  or 
of  some  custom.  Such  readings  contribute  valuable 
aid  to  the  understanding  of  the  text,  and  bring  the 
reader  closer  to  the  warmth  of  the  original.  The 
margins  of  the  Revised  Versions  are  replete  with 


7 


hiterpretative  Margins 

such  help.  In  Genesis  i :  20,  we  find ;  “  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven,”  where  the  margin  gives,  “Heb. 
on  the  face  of  the  expanse  of  the  heavens.”  In  Gen¬ 
esis  3 :  20,  “  Eve  ”  is  explained  in  the  margin,  ”  Heb. 
Havvah,  that  is.  Living,  or  Life.”  The  word 
“South,”  in  Genesis  12:  9,  is  commented  on  in  the 
margin,  “  Heb.  Negeb,  the  southern  tract  of  Judah.” 
“Mesopotamia”  in  Genesis  24:  10,  is  treated  in  the 
margin  as  follows :  “  Heb.  Aram-naharaim,  that  is, 
Aram  of  the  two  rivers.”  Genesis  43 :  9  gives  the 
conclusion  of  Judah’s  vow  to  Jacob  in  these  words, 
“  then  let  me  bear  the  blame  for  ever,”  whereas  the 
margin  reads,  “  Heb.  I  shall  have  sinned  against  thee 
for  ever.”  Job  40:  15,  for  “behemoth”  has  in  the 
margin,  “  That  is,  the  hippopotamus ;  ”  and  Job  41  :  i 
for  “  leviathan  ”  has  as  its  marginal  note,  “  That  is, 
the  crocodile.”  Jeremiah  51:1  contains  that  strange 
name,  “  Leb-kamai,”  explained  in  the  margin,  “  That 
is.  The  heart  of  them  that  rise  up  against  me.”  In 
Matthew  5 :  46,  “  publicans  ”  is  explained  in  the  mar¬ 
gin,  “  That  is,  collectors  or  renters  of  Roman  taxes.” 
That  passage  in  the  Lord’s  prayer,  Matthew  6:  ii, 
“  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread,”  has  this  mar¬ 
ginal  note,  “  Gr.  our  bread  for  the  coming  day.  Or, 
our  needful  bread.”  In  Jesus’  prayer,  John  17:  2, 
“  to  all  whom  thou  hast  given  him  he  should  give 
eternal  life,”  the  margin  reads,  “  Gr.  whatsoever  thou 
hast  given  him,  to  them  he,  &c.”  Such  marginal 
notes  are  a  kind  of  commentary,  adding  material  that 
is  often  essential  to  the  understanding  of  the  text. 


8 


The  English  Bible 

6.  A  third  class  of  marginal  readings  is  made  up 
of  those  notes  which  are  quotations  from  Hebrew 
or  Greek  manuscripts,  other  than  those  upon  which 
the  translated  text  is  based.  These  variant  manu¬ 
script  readings  often  throw  welcome  light  on  the 
true  meaning  of  a  difficult  Averse,  by  furnishing  some 
reading  that  could  be  substituted  for  that  in  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  Hebrew  or  Greek  text.  That  diffi¬ 
cult  passage  in  which  Elisha  sends  word  to  Ben- 
hadad,  King  of  Syria,  through  Hazael  (2  Kings  8: 
10),  saying,  “  Go,  say  unto  him.  Thou  shalt  surely 
recover,  howbeit  Jehovah,”  etc.,  has  a  marginal  note 
that  says,  “  Another  reading  is.  Thou  shalt  not  re¬ 
cover,  for  Jehovah,  &c.”  In  Isaiah  9:  3,  ‘‘thou  hast 
increased  their  joy,”  has  a  marginal  note,  “Another 
reading  is,  thou  didst  not  increase  the  joy.”  Isaiah 
52 :  2,  “  loose  thyself  from  the  bonds  of  thy  neck,” 
has  in  the  margin,  “  Another  reading  is,  the  bonds 
of  thy  neck  are  loosed.”  In  the  Lord’s  prayer,  in 
Matthew  6:  13,  there  is  a  marginal  note  which  says, 
“  Many  authorities,  some  ancient,  but  with  variations, 
add.  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and 
the  glory,  for  ever.  Amen.”  To  Mark  16:  gi.,  there 
is  this  marginal  remark,  “  The  two  oldest  Greek  man¬ 
uscripts,  and  some  other  authorities,  omit  from  ver.  9 
to  the  end.  Some  other  authorities  have  a  different 
ending  to  the  Gospel.”  In  John  3  :  31b,  32a,  .  .  .  “  he 
that  cometh  from  heaven  is  above  all.  What  he  hath 
seen  and  heard,  of  that  he  beareth  witness,”  is  noted 
in  the  margin  by,  “  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  he 


Variants  of  Ancient  Versions  9 

that  cometh  from  heaven  beareth  witness  of  what  he 
hath  seen  and  heard.”  Examples  of  this  class  of 
readings  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely  to  show  that 
there  are  variant  readings  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
manuscripts  which  are  worth  careful  study  on  the 
part  of  every  diligent  student  of  the  Bible. 

7.  A  fourth  class  of  marginal  readings  reaches 
out  still  farther  into  the  field  of  contributory  litera¬ 
ture.  These  notes  are  made  up  of  variations  from 
the  original  texts,  as  we  have  them,  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  which  are  found  in  the  best  ancient 
versions,  such  as  those  of  the  Greek  Bible  or  Septua- 
gint,  the  Latin  Bible  or  Vulgate,  and  the  Syriac  Bible 
or  Peshitta.  The  American  Revised  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament  usually  names  specifically  the  ancient 
version  whose  reading  is  quoted  in  the  margin,  but 
the  New  Testament  conceals  its  sources  under  some 
such  phrases  as  “  Some  ancient  authorities,”  “  Many 
ancient  authorities,”  etc.  Such  sources  are  quoted 
rather  sparingly  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  only 
where  the  contribution  is  of  some  genuine  worth.  In 
Genesis  6:  3,  “My  spirit  shall  not  strive  with  man 
for  ever,”  the  margin  says,  “Acc[ording]  to  Sept 
[uagint],  Vulg[ate],  and  Syr[iac],  abide  in.”  Gene¬ 
sis  49 :  10,  “  until  Shiloh  come  ”  has  a  variant  in  the 
margin,  “  Or,  acc.  to  Syr.,  Till  he  come  whose  it  is, 
&c.”  I  Samuel  14:  18,  where  Saul  says,  “Bring 
hither  the  ark  of  God.  For  the  ark  of  God  was 
there  at  that  time  with  the  children  of  Israel,”  carries 
in  the  margin,  “  Some  editions  of  the  Sept,  have. 


lo  The  English  Bible 

Bring  hither  the  ephod.  For  he  wore  the  ephod  at 
that  time  before  Israel/’  In  2  Chronicles  i :  13  the 
translators  adopted  the  reading  of  three  ancient  ver¬ 
sions  as  against  that  of  the  Heb.,  as  seen  in  the  mar¬ 
ginal  note,  “  So  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.  The  Heb.  has, 
to.”  This  same  policy  was  adopted  in  Psalm  22 :  16, 
“  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet,”  since  the 
margin  says,  “  So  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.  The 
Hebrew  text  as  pointed  reads.  Like  a  lion,  my,  &c.” 
The  fact  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  name 
the  ancient  sources  of  its  variants,  allows  us  to  pass 
by  this  class  in  that  division  of  the  Bible.  We  learn 
at  least  from  this  class  of  marginal  notes  that  there  is 
considerable  matter,  valuable  both  for  the  transla¬ 
tion  and  interpretation,  found  outside  of  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  original  texts  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments. 

8.  The  marginal  readings  classified  in  the  preced¬ 
ing  sections  bristle  with  questions  concerning  the 
“  whence  ”  of  our  English  Bible.  They  point  to 
scores  of  manuscripts  which  do  not  agree  in  all  re¬ 
spects,  to  ancient  versions  that  preserve  in  many 
places  a  different  reading  from  that  found  in  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  original  text  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  At  first  thought  these  facts  disturb  the 
mind  of  the  student  of  the  English  Bible.  He  finds 
at  least  four  classes  of  marginal  readings  in  the 
American  Standard  Revised  Version.  They  are  (i) 
a  variant  translation  of  the  same  Hebrew  or  Greek 
text;  (2)  an  explanation,  interpretation  or  literal 


Reasons  for  Variants  1 1 

interpretation  of  some  Hebrew  or  Greek  word  or 
proper  name;  (3)  quotations  from,  or  variants  of, 
some  other  than  the  regular  Hebrew  or  Greek  text 
upon  which  the  translation  of  the  English  Bible  is 
based ;  (4)  readings  found  in  the  ancient  translations 
or  versions  of  the  Bible. 

9.  If  the  original  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes¬ 
taments  were  in  each  Testament  one  text,  how  could 
all  these  variations  arise  ?  How  could  there  be  such 
a  vast  collection  of  variants  as  that  found,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  in  the  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible?  This  question 
is  easily  answered.  Before  the  invention  of  printing 
from  movable  types,  books  were  multiplied  solely  by 
the  hand  of  fallible  man.  A  slip  of  the  pen,  an  error  of 
sight,  an  error  of  hearing,  or  an  error  of  memory, 
on  the  part  of  a  scribe  or  copyist,  would  be  preserved 
and  perpetuated  with  the  same  care  as  that  exercised 
in  preserving  the  best  text.  Subsequent  copyists  and 
translators  would  not  only  perpetuate  earlier  errors, 
but  would  probably  add  the  same  kind  of  evidences 
of  their  own  fallibility.  This  kind  of  multiplication 
of  manuscripts,  extending  down  through  the  centuries, 
opened  the  door  to  untold  possibilities  of  many  kinds 
of  errors  in  the  text  that  was  thus  treated.  From 
the  one  original  text  of  each  of  the  two  Testaments, 
copyists  and  translators  multiplied  copies  and  trans¬ 
lations  for  more  than  two  thousand  years.  The  ef¬ 
forts  of  biblical  scholars  to-day  are  aimed  at  discov¬ 
ering,  if  possible,  what  the  errors  are,  and  what  the 
original  text  may  have  been. 


12 


The  English  Bible 

Subsequent  chapters  of  this  book  will  aim  to  look 
into  the  origin,  character,  and  value  of  the  principal 
ancient  versions,  and  the  early  English  Bibles,  and  to 
indicate  approximately  only  the  contribution  that' 
each  has  made  to  the  up-to-date  American  Standard 
Revised  Version  of  1901. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  BASES  OF  OUR  PRESENT  VERSIONS 

lo.  The  variety  of  the  available  marginal  readings 
of  our  current  versions  of  the  English  Bible  point  to 
several  sources.  We  find  references  (i)  to  variant 
readings  of  manuscripts,  and  (2)  to  several  ancient 
versions,  such  as  the  Septuagint,  the  Syriac,  and  the 
Vulgate.  These  versions  were  translated  at  an  early 
date,  and  hence  were  made  from  texts  that  were  in 
existence  from  fifteen  hundred  to  twenty-two  hundred 
years  ago.  They  thus  form  an  important  evidence 
to  the  original  texts  as  they  existed  in  that  far-off 
day.  Our  English  Bible,  with  all  its  variants  and 
readings,  bases  its  best  renderings  and  best  thought, 
as  we  discover  in  its  pages,  upon  at  least  four 
sources  of  supply :  ( i )  the  reconstructed  original 
texts  found  in  our  best  printed  editions  of  the  He¬ 
brew  Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  New  Testament; 
(2)  the  manuscripts  of  these  Testaments  as  either 
collated  and  published,  or  as  preserved  in  various 
great  libraries  of  the  world;  (3)  the  most  im¬ 
portant  ancient  versions,  whose  translations  were 
made  more  than  a  thousand  years  before  the  inven¬ 
tion  of  printing;  (4)  paraphrases  and  quotations 
from  ancient  authors  which  may  be  valuable  in  the 
determination  of  some  points  in  the  text. 


13 


14  The  Bases  of  Our  Present  Versions 

II.  The  first  source  of  our  English  translation  is 
the  commonly  received  original  Hebrew  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  revisers’  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  as  a  whole  has  remained  practically  un¬ 
changed  for  centuries.  There  are  published  lists  of 
variations  of  manuscripts  which  are  used  in  making 
a  critical  study  or  translation  of  the  received  text. 
Except  where  stated  differently  in  the  margin,  the 
Revised  Version  is  practically  a  translation  of  this 
common  text.  On  the  other  hand,  the  best  printed 
text  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  constructed 
within  the  last  half-century  on  the  basis  of  the  read¬ 
ings  of  the  best  manuscripts.  The  Greek  text  from 
which  the  revisers  made  the  translation  of  the  Re¬ 
vised  Version  was  constructed  by  the  use  of  all  the 
best  documentary  sources  which  have  been  discovered 
within  the  last  three  hundred  years.  It  was  then  a 
resultant  of  the  work  of  the  best  scholarship  engaged 
on  the  Revision  Committee.  It  was  not  the  text  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  or  of  any  other  recognized  au¬ 
thority,  but  that  which  was  worked  out  by  the  best 
talent  of  the  Committee.  The  difference  between  the 
textus  receptus  ”  used  as  the  basis  for  the  Authorized 
and  other  versions,  and  that  prepared  by  the  revisers, 
is  slight  in  substance,  but  very  much  in  form.  The 
latter  is  “  shorter,  but  it  is  also  older,  purer  and 
stronger.”  But  since  these  texts  from  which  the 
translations  were  made,  particularly  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  were  prepared  or  reconstructed  by  the  use  of 


Use  of  the  Manuscripts  15 

manuscripts,  let  us  pass  on  to  inquire  concerning  this 
basis. 

12.  The  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  date,  at 
the  latest,  from  the  invention  of  printing  from  mov¬ 
able  types  in  1455,  back  to  the  fourth  century  A.  D. 
They  were  written  on  paper  and  vellum  of  various 
kinds,  generally  by  persons  who  were  skilled  in  such 
writing.  They  were  copied  directly  from  some  other 
manuscript,  or  were  written  at  the  dictation  of  some 
reader.  The  oldest  manuscript  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament  whose  date  is  positively  known,  touches 
916  A.  D.,  much  more  than  one  thousand  years  after 
the  writing  of  the  latest  book  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  oldest  New  Testament  Greek  manuscript  reaches 
back  into  the  fourth  century,  or  is  about  five  hundred 
years  older  than  the  oldest  Hebrew  manuscript. 

In  order  to  profit  by  these  documents,  scholars 
have  started  with  some  standard  printed  edition  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  basis,  and  then  by  a  careful 
comparison  of  the  various  manuscripts  with  that 
printed  text  have  collected  all  the  variations  in  the 
readings  supplied  by  these  manuscripts.  These  docu¬ 
ments  are  found  in  scores  of  libraries,  and  their  exam¬ 
ination  and  comparison  involved  long  and  patient 
work  of  a  very  taxing  kind.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
particularly,  there  are  two  large  collections  of  these 
variants  which  have  not  yet  been  embodied  in  any 
printed  versions  of  the  Hebrew.  The  revisers  made 
use  of  these  separate  collections  in  preparing  their 
Hebrew  text  from  which  they  made  their  translation. 


1 6  The  Bases  of  Our  Present  Versions 

The  best  New  Testament  manuscripts  have  been 
thoroughly  collated,  and  their  valuable  readings  em¬ 
bodied  in  the  text  or  margins  of  the  latest  and  best 
printed  texts  of  the  Greek  New  Testament.  Scholars 
who  make  use  of  these  recently  issued  texts  have  at 
their  disposal,  in  the  margins,  all  the  best  variations 
of  the  New  Testament  manuscripts.  In  our  Revised 
Version  the  marginal  references  to  such  variant  read¬ 
ings  are  very  numerous.  They  show  the  value  which 
must  be  attached  to  the  existence  of  a  large  number 
of  manuscripts,  and  also  to  the  nicety  of  discrimina¬ 
tion  which  must  be  exercised  by  scholars  in  dealing 
with  these  variants.  Taken  together,  they  must 
yield,  by  careful  critical  judgment,  a  text  that  de¬ 
serves  the  confidence  of  every  earnest  student  of  the 
New  Testament. 

13.  Another  and  a  very  important  basis  of  our 
present  versions  is  made  up  of  the  contributions  of 
the  various  ancient  versions.  As  these  will  be 
treated  in  detail  further  on,  the  merest  skeleton  as 
to  their  value  will  be  given  here,  (i)  The  Septua- 
gint  was  translated  out  of  the  original  Hebrew  prob¬ 
ably  between  280  and  130  B.  C.  It  was  made  at 
Alexandria  under  Hebrew-Greek  influences,  hence 
carries  a  distinctive  Hebrew  flavor.  It  sprang 
from  an  original  Hebrew  source  more  than  a  thou¬ 
sand  years  before  the  age  of  the  oldest  Hebrew  man¬ 
uscript.  But  this  Bible,  like  the  Hebrew,  was  muh 
tiplied  by  copyists,  down  to  the  fifteenth  century, 
hence  was  subject  to  copyists’  errors.  To  secure 


M  <  <7 CM  »CA.»  no*  H 

A  t  <  t  oy  Kf  *  i«» 

» *<r  t  wf wwo'  nn 

CTW  oY‘4y**^  ^  * 

M- 
Kt  I  A,< 

"^'  A  K  w  ( « »y‘ '  f  ‘  ' 

I  AtMiy  it>n  AX<.’(A7J 

*M<  U  ion  HAfAi  *(••• 
#AO  *  •  I'll » KKX'  t\IX'X'-f-: 
A  A  A  A  K  A  M  <  A.XTA' 

•1  uyoAf  XtAl^'O-'  :a,»i 
» <»Y<-M-*  oyMC-Hoy 
'lOYKAjOAcyoCKW 
<n.  f  A I  nrnoAYOAT 

( <n«:  lAfMMAJAXt- 
|I^A<”»A»t  nlCKAlcIA 


1  lOf  ( 

AA'f WyKAHiy 

nACAlAJrVNAIK'* 
»rtT»oHCOYriMH, 
n HM  tofO  H  Af A‘i 

<  KY  KOMA* 

X7> YY  < » >1  *  <  A<  y'fCHXf 

AAt  Hf<  C<"M<>A<-> 
r  0<“  *  1 1  >  *  AC  I  At  >  KA> 
(OH.  AfKoyClNKXl 

t  (  (t  »l  nt‘<  MOA  AC  f 

C<  yr.  K  AtjAt-V  XAstI 
<:<  Wt'MAMOY'AtM' 


Jc  Af  AOOHTXtK-M  » *r 
MAAAfMACXnMt 
n  ( MCA*  aka*  f  TN**- 
M  XMAf  C'Cft 
AC  »  R  Kc  1  ACyC  »■  *  A  M 
T  I  AO  I  I  MIC  A 1 1  I  f  f  n 
■(CORACtACI  lOOfA 
(  maka-h  I  (0(i:t<- 
crf  i<i)c- 

KAI  AA(Of<.U*  lOCMN 
fOYAAItx  J  Mt'Oy 
t'OI  C  I  f  t  I  lOAt  I  KAI 
o  non  A  AY  onMAy 
.  I 


•Af  J  lilt « ■  lOAKACf  Al  M  t  -f  AU>YCA‘’ 

Af  IA><  f  1  (Hrf  mihi’“»»y*>.(  <  >YO  loy  (t»Y'C<  K' 
MCfX'll'IAI  lyi’JXriNl  '  . . 


KAIAIX  <  (IA‘  M<»-’*’"^’"A<fX  AICK  O  (OyiA 
n  At  AM  I  Ilf*  KAt  1 
At  I  AW  K  Al  AAll>CAA 
KXIXI 1 1  W  At  >  I  WAT 
')«l>W<Oiri<  t  I  WAI 
t|"-0  ROW  Ay  *  tilt 'tN 

I  AU'OI  A*  AlCA'f  I  - 


At 'C  A  AAt  >»  ;  I  A*  ( tow 
Af  xoAiycoM*  ft-fcttA^ 
KA I  M'f  l^tlAW  AKt  >f 

<rACAI'IAf<Jt>K>><»''< 

AcXtfOAi'f'A'Yn  Af ; 

T  »  »« (XT  A  M  Mtro  y  t'l  N 

>  CJAXCTfCOeAl'IMACA) 

Tc»y'OA»4ifc«A^^y|-x  » 
■  Y«»»AAt5liC»YA»A«»<^^ 
•rtlTRACIAc'ArxrcA;  ^ 

•;  A?  Ar<  I'fR  At'iAA  (^i- 
KA**  f  aY*  !'ftl>KA> 

I  AlOYtWtTl-^cy*' 

'MtlAtOWK  All  H  1> 
tOiWKAIMHAAA'- 
TCf * f t'AC'C >t*>A«  list 

<  U't  AOtYtllY  f  I  I 

I  I  f.  A«  -|A  |cCAf*ftTC 
Ar-*t>A*  KAI  I  ( IN  KA 

<  lAC!  ANAy  IHCAO 

( tooKAt'iACYc*  y 

ti  Al  K  1, 1  KJ’II  ItlWl 

A-)  (  I  ICK  Al  AKoyCtMl 
lOHUItlMtH  mlKi^ 
(.>•(  KAfI  ActncofO^ 


list  t  WOKAfl  AtY*'‘’p’ 

‘(tiY<»Yf  I  oyKAioy 
(Vt  i  l<  f  t  MIH  oil  I  !!•• 

A'  I  IWMMf  IMtl 
WtyUTWOlAI  AAAK 
(  AW  KAItlICKAIt  ffl 
Nl^WAf  I  IIWAAIt  ( 
f  »AMO*AI  AKOA*-* 

,  ,  yCXyRAfl  At  tOC/lt 
!xrnWA>H  l  tt>  HITRAt  * 

At  IKtffAt  IAsA‘JYe» 
fAKAAAroTt  iaW 
AA*  KA(  AC**ICt-|0 
K  At  I  At  yc  KtilK^Jff 
XAOt  MM  Al'AlfXtlT 
f  Alt  I  lit  R  At'lXt  I 
At  AY  lOYKAItyjl 
At  .  A  |i|)t  AMAlTfA 
t  I  Al  I A  flit  w  Taka 
A  A  I  1 1  M  I  Vt  It  1 1  t  t >1 
t'AW  I  I  IMI  l(>AI  Wt  I- 
lOWI  '|  fit  KtON  AN 
r  I  ApAAtTOn  ItIK  A 
Tun  y  Mi>YXti>  I  tiT 
RAl  I  At  tot- ItOvj'Y 
A  ANI  I  I  tnwi  yiMt  AC 


W  AntJCM  1 1  f  At  A*^ 

M.WMtT'AXKA!  IK 
Cl  ITAKfipAt'l  at  A 

Al  I  tTAt'f^l  I  Alt  K*  A 
Ay  IT*  t"K  RAC  I  AC* 
KOYKAicxrnt'^l' 

Al  (IIKAAUTOKAI 

jNUAM’Alt'ATl'f' 
t  w  ittfryWTK'U’fi' 

KKItTyK  ylic  All-f 
tCt'llf  KHCNOt  AJ 
IT  I  coy  At-  niwiiA 

I  flAAOl  AfMAl-AO 

XAIOt  t  Mt  I  |AA|- 
A'Y  I  M  Alt!  Al  I  Al  I  -I 

AAlKAOtNAt  ItlW 
At  (lAtfpAWtTAI  Af 

AOXAlOfl  It  fit  llA 

*C*  KAI  AIMW  KTAII 

I  M  W  f  yHKIKI  AW' 
ITICKO*  ItOWTI* 

t  OM  pcyM  K  H‘  <  1^' 
tiyTOCAt  IIWKA* 
ptH'!  K O  f  At'  1 1 '  Y‘ >  "A 
OC  I  W  I  I  f  O  t'  ItlW  RA 
ClAC'AtT  I  AW  AW  a 

II  AMftlft  HlMfl^>< 
AtOAi  KAOYTUTlAf 
AW  Al  lAMft'YWTK. 

'  Ml  I  M  CpAI  1  I  UT*C 
fxlllAt  MMWAC  • 
tT  A  A I  vh  O  .-v*  <•  W  AJ 
I  M c Ki-y f  Ki I NciT e 
\AltlAKAtMMW  A' 


poyy  oyt  t  am  t  itn- 
it»y  (vt  icAioyi  A 
tWAMCRt  WlAMtl' 
fX  MMAI  V  WAXtU 
I  tH  Cf,  J  iT  lA  ►!  »*W 

HXMAAti’ltyCt-W 

N  A  Rt  f  ’ 

t  Of  R  At'IAt  ifRA 
RYAUTWOt'KAIMW 
loy  riiH  I A  icof  t 
M  M  IOY>  AllirAMI 
W  AA  AA.AAt 
M  Al  pot  Ay  ItTJlvAl 
IUOWOM  AA'i  Oil 
t-C  i(  I  f  1  W  At  |U  > 

MCJAAAAJAlAy 
( »(f  *oYc»x)W<-!f 
t  flc  At  Yt't  NAT  IU»Nf* 

«=Ky  lt*>t  it'i  ywAi 

KAKAIMW  lOKOfA 

t'lOW  KAAI  I  not  lAl'ftyt^t'M  W  IOK-ApuTMA 
KAIcT  *rH  KOYt't'M’7».l^t:i  M  KjAlf  M  lOfO'Wftr 
-wttoYtM-IAt  tin:  M  ACIW  AAl'ItT  TCAl-  Yt^KtVfA'KK' f/ 

I  lOft  yc’IAMipcfC-' 

JtlM  R  ACIAt  AAA* 
tiTt'AWcMIllllApA 
Atot’KAy  iMWcy.  , 

Ml-- 1  OFfTtc-CtfA  I  A| 

Va’Ai  loytTyryW'- 
K<ITWOOtct>(V|(|>w 
RXt'IAt'ltITMAC* 

'  VMt'tyfMofcyciM 
KAI*  I  ft'CM  Mt  pAfI 
Antt*  pc'Xt  It  I*  (- 


'loloyKAfiAt  tot 
I  I  poo  l  Al  M  At  YMM 
XtfUC'AfYI  M  w  no 
Ki  Myiioxt  ifArxi 

KAI  HXOUt  t  lfM  f 
nflTfl  AJ.|OMvj>Y 
ARK  A'ftifw  r  ywAiii'' 
KAMI  f  Cl't-  H  Ayrto 
ItTKOfACIOWAKl 
cy  ft  MxApiNcwto 
I  I  low  Ay  itTyN  Al 
t-f  M  C  yt  <  d  A  f  1 1 1  A* 


' A 't« AAAr> I C(‘# 


Codex  Sinaiticus  (S).  T-oiirth  Century  12,  115-117) 
Esther i  ;  1 5  to  2  :  14 


Use  of  the  Ancient  Versions  17 

a  good  text  of  the  Septuagint  scholars  must  use  the 
same  methods  as  those  employed  in  fixing  a  Greek 
text  of. the  New  Testament.  (2)  The  Syriac  Ver¬ 
sion  was  made  from  the  original  Hebrew  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  second  century  A.  D.  It  seems  to  have  suffered 
somewhat  from  the  doctrinal  beliefs  of  its  translators. 
But  it  represents  the  original  of  the  Old  Testament 
about  three  centuries  later  than  the  Septuagint,  and 
that  of  the  New  Testament  within  about  one  hun¬ 
dred  years  after  it  was  completed.  Its  true  text, 
h9wever,  must  be  determined  by  the  same  processes 
as  those  employed  to  fix  the  New  Testament  Greek 
text.  (3)  The  Vulgate,  so-called,  was  for  the  most 
part  the  translation  into  Latin  by  Jerome  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  texts  of  the  Bible  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury  A.  D.  This  version,  then,  represents  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  original  texts  of  the  Bible  about  two  cen¬ 
turies  later  than  the  Syrian,  and  about  five  to  six 
centuries  later  than  the  Septuagint.  The  true  text 
of  the  Vulgate,  as  of  the  Syrian  and  Septuagint,  must 
be  determined  by  the  processes  already  mentioned. 

These  three  ancient  versions  are  our  most  valuable 
aids,  among  the  translations  of  the  Bible,  in  ascer¬ 
taining  just  what  the  original  text  of  the  two  Testa¬ 
ments  must  have  been.  The  margins  of  our  Revised 
Version  of  the  Old  Testament  show  that  the  transla¬ 
tors  carefully  followed  the  texts  of  each  of  these^ 
ancient  versions,  and  in  a  few  cases  adopted  their 
readings  in  preference  to  the  Hebrew  original,  and 


1 8  The  Bases  of  Our  Present  Versions 

in  a  much  more  numerous  list  of  cases  regarded  their 
readings  of  sufficient  importance  to  quote  them  as 
valuable  alternate  readings  or  side-lights. 

14.  Before  the  careful  translator  has  completed 
his  preparation,  he  will  consult  for  the  Old  Testament 
those  notable  Jewish  paraphrases  called  the  Targums. 
Though  they  are  not  always  nor  prevailingly  accurate 
translations  of  the  original,  they  still  represent,  often 
in  fine  form,  the  thought  of  the  Hebrew.  They 
sometimes  aid,  too,  in  giving  a  correct  shade  of  mean¬ 
ing  to  a  word  whose  form  or  meaning  in  the  original 
Hebrew  has  become  either  obscure  or  altogether 
lost. 

Both  of  the  Testaments  are  frequently  quoted  in 
ancient  literature,  especially  by  the  church  fathers. 
These  quotations  were  made  in  some  cases  merely 
from  memory,  and  sometimes  poor  memory  at  that. 
In  other  cases  they  aim  to  give  only  the  sense  of  the 
original.  In  still  others,  the  words  seem  to  be  a  faith¬ 
ful  quotation,  either  from  the  Septuagint  or  Vulgate. 
Occasionally  only  they  were  translated  from  the 
original  Hebrew.  Such  quotations,  either  fragment¬ 
ary,  or  exact,  furnish  valuable  material  to  the  trans¬ 
lator  of  the  Bible,  and  have  contributed  no  insignifi¬ 
cant  part  to  the  proper  understanding  of  some  other¬ 
wise  obscure  passages  of  that  Book. 

15.  It  must  be  evident  now  that  the  translators 
of  our  present  versions  have  had  at  their  disposal  an 
embarrassing  amount  of  textual  riches.  It  must  be 
plain  also  that  the  abundance  of  this  material  has 


Revisers  Apparatus  Criticus  19 

imposed  upon  them  heavy  burdens.  They  have  had 
to  determine  their  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  on  the  basis  of  the  manuscripts,  ancient  ver¬ 
sions,  and  quotations.  And  in  doing  this  they  were 
practically  obliged  to  use  the  best  printed  texts  of 
the  ancient  versions,  which  are  by  no  means  the  re¬ 
sult  of  a  collation  of  all  the  known  manuscripts  of 
those  individual  versions.  This  of  itself,  of  course, 
deprived  them  of  what  may  yet  be  valuable  aids  to 
future  translators. 

Our  translators  have  used  as  the  basis  of  their  re¬ 
vision,  then,  all  the  available  material  that  could  be 
treated  by  a  small  body  of  scholars,  limited  as  to  time 
and  strength.  Their  work  is  seen  in  the  text  itself, 
in  the  marginal  notes,  and  in  the  appendices. 

A  treatment  of  each  individual  version,  and  its  part 
in  the  work  which  culminated  in  our  Revised  English 
Bible,  will  be  treated  in  succeeding  chapters. 


Part  I.  The  Old  Testament 


CHAPTER  III 

HEBREW  WRITING,  TEXT,  AND  MANUSCRIPTS 

i6.  The  Old  Testament  books  were  written  in 
Hebrew, — the  language  used  by  Israel  during  all  the 
years  of  its  existence  as  a  nation,  in  Egypt,  the  wil¬ 
derness  and  in  Palestine,  stretching  down  into  the  cen¬ 
turies  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 
Within  these  books,  however,  we  find  another  lan¬ 
guage,  a  kind  of  modified  Hebrew,  employed  in 
part  by  the  Jews  in  the  centuries  immediately  pre¬ 
ceding,  and  during  the  Christian  era.  This  is  called 
Biblical  Aramaic,  and  is  found  as  the  language  of 
Daniel  2  :  4  to  7 :  28 ;  Ezra  4 :  8  to  6 :  18 ;  7 :  12-26,  and 
Jeremiah  10:  ii.  A  few  words  of  this  same  tongue 
are  found  scattered  here  and  there  throughout  the 
Hebrew  Bible. 

The  oldest  specimen  of  biblical  Hebrew  writing  of 
any  considerable  size  that  we  possess  to-day  is  either 
that  of  the  St.  Petersburg  codex  of  the  prophets, 
dated  916  A.  D.,  or  a  British  Museum  manuscript 
copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  Ginsburg  locates  at 
least  half  a  century  earlier.”  According  to  S.  A.  Cook 
the  scrap  which  is  figured  in  the  frontispiece  of  this 
volume  bears  the  palm  for  age.  Both  of  these  larger 
20 


Hebrew  Writing  and  Writers  2 1 

manuscripts  are  written  in  the  so-called  square  char¬ 
acter,  similar  to  those  found  in  our  printed  Hebrew 
Bibles.  Prepared  at  that  point  in  time,  viz.,  916  A.  D., 
or  even  fifty  years  earlier,  they  represent  the  Hebrew 
script  of  at  least  a  thousand  years  after  the  youngest 
book  of  the  Old  Testament  was  put  into  writing.  One 
thousand  years  of  multiplying  books  by  the  process 
of  copying  with  the  pen  may  introduce  great  changes 
in  the  character  of  the  script.  How  many  of  us  can 
read  with  ease  English  written  documents  of  the 
fourteenth  century?  Again,  the  Hebrew  found  in 
the  rabbinical  writings  of  the  last  five  centuries  dif¬ 
fers  quite  materially  from  that  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
and  manuscripts. 

17.  Every  trace  of  the  original  manuscripts,  or 
rolls  upon  which  the  Old  Testament  was  written  has 
totally  disappeared.  That  Israel  wrote  down  descrip¬ 
tions  of  events,  bodies  of  laws,  lyrical  poems,  etc.,  is 
certain  from  hints  and  direct  references  in  the  body 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  origin  of  their  alphabet 
is  as  yet  a  conjecture,  but  its  use  from  the  time  of 
David  down  to  Judas  Maccabaeus  is  pretty  definitely 
known  to-day. 

There  is  no  mention  in  all  the  book  of  Genesis  of 
writing.  Abraham  (Gen.  23)  bought  the  cave  of 
Machpelah  from  Ephron  the  PTittite,  but  nothing  is 
said  of  any  written  contract.  The  first  mention  of 
writing  in  the  Old  Testament  is  in  Exodus  17:  14, 
where  Moses  is  commanded  to  write  down  in  a  book 
an  account  of  Israel’s  victory  over  Amalek.  In  Ex- 


2  2  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

odus  24 :  7,  Moses  reads  in  the  audience  of  the  people 
“  the  book  of  the  covenant that  is,  the  laws  con¬ 
tained  in  Exodus  20-23.  Very  soon  thereafter  he 
goes  into  the  mount  to  receive  the  two  stone  tablets 
upon  which  the  law  had  been  inscribed.  Thereafter  we 
find  frequent  references  to  writing  as  a  means  of  pre¬ 
serving  records  of  events.  In  Jeremiah  (32:  9-15)  we 
find  that  a  deed  for  property  was  drawn  up  in  two 
forms,  one  sealed  and  one  open.  Both  of  these  docu¬ 
ments,  which  may  have  been  made  of  clay,  as  they 
were  in  Babylonia,  were  deposited  in  a  jar  for  future 
reference. 

There  is  frequent  mention,  however,  of  certain 
classes  who  were  skilled  in  writing.  In  that  exquisite 
Song  of  Deborah  (Judges  5 :  14)  there  is  doubtless 
reference  to  “  the  staff  of  the  scribe  ”  (marg.).  Dur¬ 
ing  the  beginnings  and  ascendancy  of  the  monarchy, 
prophets,  court  officials  and  kings  were  able  to  record 
the  events,  decrees  and  wisdom  of  their  day.  Samuel 
(i  Sam.  10:  25),  David  (2  Sam.  ii:  14),  Nathan 
the  prophet,  Gad  the  seer  (i  Chron.  29:  29),  and 
a  host  of  others,  both  inside  and  outside  of  court 
circles,  were  able  to  make  records  in  writing.  Thus 
before  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  a  su¬ 
perabundance  of  evidence  to  show  that  among  the 
Hebrews  there  were  not  simply  scribes,  but  men  of 
distinguished  literary  ability. 

18.  With  all  these  Old  Testament  references  to 
writing  and  writers  we  do  not  possess  a  single  Old 
Testament  document  in  its  original  form.  There  was 


Extra-Biblical  Hebrew  Writings 


23 


writing,  too,  long  centuries  prior  to  Moses,  among 
the  Egyptians,  the  Babylonians,  the  Susians,  the  As¬ 
syrians,  the  Hittites,  and  other  contemporaneous 
peoples.  And  we  possess  great  quantities  of  their 
literary  products,  stretching  back  almost,  if  not  quite, 
to  5000  B.  C.  It  is  entirely  reasonable  to  expect  that 
among  the  remnants  of  ancient  oriental  writing  we 
should  find  some  scraps  of  old  Hebrew.  In  this  we 
are  not  disappointed.  In  1868  there  was  found  east 
of  the  Jordan,  at  the  site  of  ancient  Dibon,  the  now 
famous  Moabite  Stone.  Its  fragments  are  now  put 
together,  and  it  stands  in  the  Louvre  in  Paris.  It 
carried  on  its  surface  thirty-four  lines,  written  in  the 
Phoenician  or  archaic  Hebrew  of  about  860  B.  C., 
when  this  work  was  probably  executed.  It  is  the 
oldest  dated  Hebrew  document  known  to-day,  for  its 
issuer  was  Mesha,  King  of  Moab,  mentioned  in 
2  Kings  I  :  i  and  3:4.  It  was  rudely  cut  on  a  hard 
stone.  Several  lion-weights  found  at  Nineveh,  and 
dating  from  the  latter  part  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C. 
also  carry  Phoenician  and  Assyrian  characters. 

To  bring  the  case  closer  home,  an  inscription  in 
similar  character  was  found  in  Jerusalem  in  1880,  cut 
in  the  wall  of  the  tunnel  connecting  the  Pool  of 
Siloam  with  St.  Mary’s  well.  This  short  six-line  in¬ 
scription  is  written  in  elegant  Hebrew — a  little  more 
artistic  in  form  than  the  Moabite  Stone.  It  is 
thought  to  date  from  Hezekiah’s  reign,  where  a  con¬ 
duit,  probably  this  same  one,  was  constructed  (2  Kings 
20:  20;  2  Chron.  32:  30;  Ecclesiasticus  48:  17). 


24  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

These  two  inscriptions  are  the  best  known  examples 
of  the  written  language  of  the  children  of  Israel  and 
their  neighbors  in  Moab,  during  the  regal  period — 
that  period  when  writing  was  prevalent  among  the 
prophets  and  court  officials.  Samples  of  the  Hebrew 
and  Phoenician  of  the  fourth  century  B.  C.  (for  ex¬ 
ample,  the  Carpentras  stele  found  in  Egypt),  of  the 
first  three  Christian  centuries  (in  the  Palmyrenian 
form)  show  the  tendency  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet 
to  change  as  the  centuries  slide  by.  The  oldest  He¬ 
brew  inscription  in  the  square  character,  such  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  oldest  Hebrew  manuscript,  is  found 
in  a  short  inscription  in  a  cave  at  Araq  al  Ameer 
near  Heshbon,  which  was  used  as  a  place  of  retreat 
in  176  B.  C.  A  few  other  fragments  and  coins  dis¬ 
tributed  over  a  couple  of  later  centuries  show  us  how 
the  letters  gradually  moved  towards  the  later  square 
character. 

19.  It  is  probable  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  were  written  in  the  same  kind  of  script  that 
we  find  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  As  the  centuries  swept 
by,  the  value  of  these  books  to  succeeding  generations 
became  more  and  more  apparent.  They  were  not 
only  carefully  preserved,  but  were  copied  time  and 
time  again  to  perpetuate  their  usefulness,  and  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  their  being  lost  or  destroyed. 
The  ravages  of  war  and  persecution  very  greatly  en¬ 
dangered  these  Hebrew  rolls.  There  were  at  least 
three  events  which  threatened  the  very  life  of  the 
cherished  records  of  the  Hebrews.  The  first  and 


Destruction  of  Hebrew  Books  2  5 

most  critical  of  all  was  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  Nebuchadrezzar,  in  586  B.  C.,  though  at  this  time 
it  is  probable  that  Ezekiel  had  carried  some  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament  with  him  when  he  was  taken 
to  Babylonia  in  597  B.  C.,  eleven  years  before  the  fall 
of  the  capital.  Again,  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (in 
167  B.  C.)  ordered  all  the  copies  of  the  law  to  be  de¬ 
stroyed  (i  Macc.  i:  56,  57),  his  decree  did  not 
reach  to  Babylonia,  where  Ezekiel  and  Ezra  had  been 
busy  in  earlier  centuries  instructing  their  people,  and 
where  doubtless  copies  of  the  Old  Testament  books 
were  extant.  Nor  did  it  reach  to  Egypt,  where,  at 
least  one  hundred  years  before  that  day,  translators 
had  busied  themselves  to  put  into  Greek  some  at  least 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews. 

The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  in  70  A.  D. 
was  a  third  disaster  at  that  place,  that  threatened  the 
life  of  the  Old  Testament.  On  the  authority  of  the 
Babylonian  Talmud,  Titus  destroyed  copies  of  the  law. 
Josephus  (Wars  5:  5,  7)  states  that  one  single  copy 
of  the  law  occupied  a  prominent  place  in  the  victory 
of  Vespasian.  This  is  the  earliest  mentioned  manu¬ 
script  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  was  said  to  have 
just  thirty-two  variations  from  the  received  text. 
This  document  was  later  deposited  in  the  royal  library 
at  Rome,  and  later,  in  220  A.  D.,  was  handed  over  to 
the  synagogue  of  Severus,  probably  by  the  emperor, 
who  was  a  good  friend  to  the  Jews. 

These  perils  to  the  manuscript  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  did  probably  extinguish  many  of  the  sources  of 


26 


Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

some  of  the  books.  For  we  find  to-day,  mentioned 
in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  now  extant,  the 
names  and  titles  of  twenty-four  books  that  have  per¬ 
ished.  By  far  the  largest  number  of  these  is  found 
in  Kings  and  Chronicles.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
some  of  those  works,  if  existent,  would  be  found  in 
our  Bible,  but  they  were  probably  blotted  out  by  the 
dire  disasters  that  befel  Jerusalem  and  the  Jews  be¬ 
tween  600  B.  C.  and  A.  D.  100. 

20.  The  alphabet  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  made 
up  of  twenty-two  letters — all  consonants.  Four  of 
these  are  called  vowel  letters,  for  their  presence  indi¬ 
cated  the  use  of  certain  vowel  sounds  in  the  pronun¬ 
ciation  of  a  word.  On  the.  Moabite  Stone  and  the 
Siloam  Inscription,  the  individual  words  are  separated 
by  a  small  point.  This  is  found  also  between  the 
words  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  It  is  probable 
that  as  soon  as  the  writing  became  modified  into  the 
square  characters,  as  seen  in  the  St.  Petersburg  codex, 
that  this  dot  was  omitted.  For  there  are  many  in¬ 
stances  in  the  Old  Testament  where  two  Hebrew 
words  have  been  written  as  one.  The  continuous 
multiplication  of  the  biblical  Hebrew  rolls  by  the  pen 
of  a  scribe  opened  the  door  for  numerous  errors.  If 
any  one  is  not  convinced  of  this,  let  him  try  to  make 
an  exact  copy,  through  one  solid  week,  or  one  entire 
day,  of  any  written  or  printed  document.  There  were 
not  in  these  manuscripts  any  verse,  paragraph,  or 
chapter  divisions  beyond  small  spaces.  Even  the 
Psalms  were  not  separated,  so  that  the  Septuagint 


27 


Origm  of  Textual  Changes 

and  the  Hebrew  do  not  everywhere  agree  in  their 
arrangement.  Such  facts  only  make  it  the  more  ap¬ 
parent  that  copyists  had  no  sinecure  in  the  very 
arduous  and  careful  work  which  they  were  obliged 
to  do. 

21.  The  changes  charged  to  the  scribes  who  did 
the  copying  are  of  two  kinds,  intentional  and  unin¬ 
tentional.  Their  intentional  changes  were  made  (i) 
to  correct  what  they  conceived  to  be  an  error  in  state¬ 
ment,  or  an  error  of  a  preceding  copyist,  as  Job  7 :  20, 
“  I  am  become  a  burden  to  myself,”  for  “  I  am  be¬ 
come  a  burden  upon  thee,”  as  the  Septuagint  reads : 
I  Samuel  3;  13,  ‘‘because  his  sons  made  themselves 
vile,”  is  not  a  possible  reading  of  the  Hebrew ;  the 
Septuagint  reads,  “  did  revile  God,” — without  doubt  a 
rendering  of  the  proper  original  text;  (2)  to  insert 
some  euphemistic  word  or  phrase  in  place  of  an  in¬ 
delicate  one  found  in  the  text,  the  latter  usually  being 
dropped  into  the  margin. 

The  unintentional  changes  are  the  more  numerous. 
Scholars  have  practically  agreed  on  this  classifica¬ 
tion:  (i)  Failure  to  see  the  sense  of  a  passage,  as 
where  words  were  incorrectly  divided.  A  good  ex¬ 
ample  is  found  in  Amos  6:  12,  “Shall  horses  run 
upon  the  rock?  Will  one  plow  there  with  oxen?” 
The  word  for  “  oxen  ”  should  doubtless  be  divided 
into  two  words,  and  then  it  will  read,  “  Do  men 
plough  the  sea  with  oxen  ?  ”  Another  good  illustra¬ 
tion  is  Psalm  73:  4,  “  For  there  are  no  pangs  in  their 
death ;  but  their  strength  is  firm.”  Simply  by  sep- 


28  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

arating  the  word  translated  “  in  their  death  ”  we  can 
translate,  “  For  they  have  no  pangs,  sound  and  firm 
is  their  strength  ” — a  meaning  that  better  fits  both  the 
thought  in  the  context  and  the  parallelism. 

(2)  Errors  due  to  the  eye:  (a)  Repetitions:  in 
Leviticus  20:  lo,  omit  the  five  words  repeated;  i 
Chronicles  9:  35-44  has  been  repeated,  doubtless 
through  an  error,  from  i  Chronicles  8:  29-38.  (b) 

Omissions:  as  where,  in  Proverbs  10:  lob,  the  omis¬ 
sion  is  made  up  from  verse  8b ;  but  the  Septuagint  and 
the  Syriac  read  for  lob,  “  He  that  rebuketh  boldly  is  a 
peacemaker.”  (c)  Transposition  of  letters  or  words: 
2  Chronicles  3 :  4,  represents  the  porch  of  the  temple 
as  one  hundred  and  twenty  cubits  high.  The  Sep¬ 
tuagint  reads  twenty  cubits,  and  the  Hebrew,  by  a 
transposition  of  two  letters  and  the  two  words  reads 
twenty  cubits,  which  is  certainly  correct.  Psalm  35 : 
7  reads,  “  For  without  cause  have  they  hid  for  me 
their  net  in  a  pit,  without  cause  have  they  digged  a 
pit  for  my  soul.”  By  simply  transposing  the  words 
pit  and  net,  we  read :  For  without  cause  have  they 
hidden  their  net  for  me,  without  cause  have  they  dig¬ 
ged  a  pit  for  my  life.”  There  are  also  numerous 
cases  where  one  letter  has  been  taken  for  another  by 
the  copyist.  One  of  the  familiar  cases  is  that  where 
‘‘  Nebuchadrezzar,”  the  only  correct  reading,  has 
been,  by  mistaking  two  Hebrew  letters  n  (^),  r  (*n), 
read  ‘‘  Nebuchadnezzar.”  Another  error  of  the  same 
kind,  where  Hadadezer,”  has  been  erroneously  read 
“  Hadarezer,”  a  mistaking  of  the  Hebrew  d  ("])  for 


29 


Origin  of  Textual  Changes 

X  (^).  In  Isaiah  39:  i,  we  find  “  Merodach-baladan,” 
where  the  parallel  in  2  Kings  20:  12,  reads,  “  Bero- 
dach-baladan  ” — a  confusing  of  two  Hebrew  letters 
m  (D)  and  b  (D). 

(3)  Errors  due  to  the  ear,  where  one  read  to  a 
number  of  copyists ;  these  are  seen  mainly  in  the  use 
of  one  Hebrew  word  for  another  of  almost  or  just 
the  same  sound.  A  good  example  is  found  in  Psalm 
100:  3,  where  “and  not  we  ourselves”  should  be 
“and  we  are  his.”  In  2  Chronicles  10:  18,  “  Hado- 
ram  ”  is  “  Adoram  ”  in  i  Kings  12 :  18. 

(4)  Errors  of  memory;  these  may  be  occasioned 
by  the  fact  that  the  copyist  sometimes  carried  in  his 
mind  the  thought  rather  than  the  exact  words  of 
what  he  was  copying.  In  such  a  case  he  would  be 
apt  to  use  synonyms,  or  nearly  such,  in  place  of  the 
word  contained  in  the  original.  As  an  example  of 
this  “  Jehoiakim,”  in  Jeremiah  27 :  i,  should  be  “  Zede- 
kiah,”  as  in  verse  3. 

(5)  Errors  due  to  carelessness  or  ignorance.  Of 
this  type  there  are  many  examples.  In  i  Samuel  13:  i 
we  find  “  Saul  was  —  years  old some  copyist  care¬ 
lessly  neglected  to  put  down  the  number.  In  2  Sam¬ 
uel  3:7,“  Ish-bosheth  ”  is  missing,  but  is  found  here 
in  the  Septuagint,  Syriac  and  Vulgate.  2  Samuel  ii  : 
21  has  “  Jerubbesheth,”  a  careless  writing  for  “  Je- 
rubbaal  ”  (Judges  6:  32).  In  i  Samuel  27:  8,  “  Gir- 
zites  ”  is  read  in  some  manuscripts  “  Gizrites.”  i  Sam¬ 
uel  12:  II  has  “  Bedan,”  where  the  word  should  be 
read  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the  Syriac,  and  the 


30  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

original  narrative  as  the  story  is  told  in  the  book  of 
'Judges  4,  “  Barak.” 

Such  errors  as  these  crept  into  the  text  gradually, 
and  were  transmitted  by  copyists  from  one  manuscript 
to  another  continuously  down  through  the  centuries. 

As  a  prevention  against  further  errors  the  scribes 
counted  the  number  of  verses  (though  they  were  not 
yet  formally  numbered)  and  even  letters  in  the 
various  books,  and  then  made  note  of  the  middle 
verse,  the  middle  word,  and  the  middle  letter  of  each 
book.  These  are  found  at  the  end  of  each  book  in 
our  Hebrew  Bibles  to-day.  The  middle  verse  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  Leviticus  8:  7;  the  middle  verse  of 
Joshua  is  chapter  13:  26;  of  Judges,  chapter  10:  8. 
The  middle  verse  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  Jeremiah 
6:7.  If  a  scribe,  after  he  had  finished  his  work, 
could  not  make  his  count  tally  with  these  notations, 
there  was  some  error  in  his  copy  of  the  manuscript, 
which  must  either  be  corrected  or  his  copy  discarded. 

22.  The  Hebrews  classified  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  under  three  heads:  (i)  The  Law,  consist¬ 
ing  of  the  first  five  books,  or  the  Pentateuch;  (2) 
The  Prophets,  subdivided  into  (a)  the  Earlier  Proph¬ 
ets,  consisting  of  four  books,  Joshua,  Judges,  Sam¬ 
uel  and  Kings;  (b)  the  Latter  Prophets,  containing 
four  books,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  The  Twelve 
(one  book)  ;  (3)  the  Hagiographa,  containing  eleven 
books,  Ruth,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra 
(including  Nehemiah)  and  Chronicles.  Of  these  the 


Divisions  of  Hebrew  Text  31 

Five  Rolls,  so  often  mentioned,  are  Song  of  Songs, 
Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes  and  Esther.  The 
whole  number  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning  was 
therefore  twenty-four  books.  Josephus  and  some 
others,  by  combining  Ruth  with  Judges,  and  Lamenta¬ 
tions  with  Jeremiah,  made  them  twenty-two — the  same 
in  number  as  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet. 

Then  the  Law,  after  the  exile  at  least,  was  arranged 
to  be  read  in  regular  course.  In  Acts  15:  21,  we 
read  that,  ‘‘  Moses  from  generations  of  old  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the 
synagogues  every  sabbath.”  This  custom  has  con¬ 
tinued  to  the  present  day.  In  Palestine  it  was  read 
through  in  three  and  one-half  years.  To  facilitate 
this  plan  the  law  was  early  divided  into  sections,  called 
parashahs.  There  are  now  fifty-four  of  these  sec¬ 
tions  or  paragraphs  found  in  Hebrew  manuscripts 
and  printed  texts,  and  since  the  fourteenth  century  an 
annual  reading  of  the  whole  law  has  become  universal 
among  the  Jews. 

After  the  Law  was  read  in  the  synagogue  a  corre¬ 
sponding,  or  appropriate,  passage  was  read  from  the 
prophets.  An  example  of  this  is  seen  in  the  syna¬ 
gogue  at  Nazareth  (Luke  4:  I7f.)  when  Jesus  read 
from  the  prophet  Isaiah  (61:  if.).  P)Ut  the  sections 
into  which  the  prophets  were  divided  are  not  defi¬ 
nitely  known. 

Some  of  the  poetical  portions  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  (such  as  the  Song  of  Moses,  Exodus  15,  the 
Song  of  Deborah,  Judges  5,  the  Psalm  of  David  in 


32  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

2  Samuel  22  (Psalm  18),  are  written  in  a  peculiar 
form,  to  represent  some  phantasy  of  the  scribes.  In 
the  Septuagint  the  Psalms  are  arranged  in  a  form  to 
represent  the  fact  of  Hebrew  parallelism. 

There  was  no  early  division  into  chapters,  nor  into 
formal  or  numbered  verses,  though  the  latter  became, 
in  fact,  a  necessity  for  reasons  of  interpretation. 
When  a  reader  in  the  synagogue  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  for  centuries  thereafter,  had  read  two  or  three 
verses,  an  interpreter  would  translate  it  into  the 
spoken  Aramaic,  or  language  of  the  times  (com¬ 
pare  Nehemiah  8:  8) — an  indication  that  there  were 
regularly  recognized  divisions  in  the  text. 

23.  The  early  Hebrew  writing,  as  has  already  been 
stated,  consisted  of  consonants  only.  Four  of  these 
possessed  vowel  values,  and  wherever  any  one  or 
more  of  them  happened  to  stand  in  a  word,  they  gave 
some  key  to  its  pronunciation.  But  all  the  known 
Hebrew  Old  Testament  manuscripts  and  printed 
texts  are  supplied  with  a  complicated  and  scientific 
system  of  points,  which  give  us  exact  sounds  and 
pronunciations  for  words,  and  some  individual  conso¬ 
nants.  These  are  placed  below,  within,  or  above  the 
consonants,  as  the  varying  sounds  require. 

When  were  these  vowel  points  first  used?  We 
know  through  hints  in  Jerome  (who  died  420),  the 
Targums  and  the  Talmud,  that  there  was  no  pointed 
or  voweled  Hebrew  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  two  of  the  greatest 
authorities  on  the  use  of  the  vowel  points  lived  about 


33 


Vocalizing  the  Hebrew  Text 

the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century.  Ben  Asher,  one 
of  these  men,  was  descended  from  a  notable  family  of 
Massoretes,  or  students  of  the  text,  who  had  devoted 
at  least  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  to  that  study. 
None  of  their  records  tell  of  the  origin  of  these  points. 
But  popular  tradition  has  so  far  connected  that  family 
with  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  that  the 
Hebrew  text  supplied  with  them  is  called  the  Masso- 
retic  text.  Since  we  know  that  at  600  A.  D.  there 
were  no  points,  and  at  about  900  A.  D.  there  was  a 
full  developed  system,  it  is  evident  that  its  growth  fell 
within  those  limits.  Scholars  are  now  practically 
agreed  that  it  arose  about  the  end  of  the  seventh  or 
the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century. 

The  reason  for  the  invention  of  these  vowel  points 
lies  in  the  fact  that  Hebrew,  as  a  spoken  tongue,  was 
passing  away.  Its  teachers,  fearful  lest'  its  proper 
pronunciation  should  be  lost,  saw  that  some  helps 
to  preserve  it  were  becoming  necessary.  Syriac  had 
only  recently  adopted  the  use  of  vowel  points,  and 
the  Greek  language  had  just  begun  to  make  use  of 
accents.  It  was  then  in  accord  with  the  tendency  of 
the  age  that  some  system  be  devised  to  preserve  the 
traditional  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  language 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Massorah  means,  “  what 
is  handed  down,”  and  as  applied  to  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  its  traditional  text. 

When  the  Hebrew  was  supplied  with  those  points, 
those  voweled  words  bore  the  marks  of  the  interpre¬ 
tation  that  the  “  pointers  ”  gave  them.  The  conso- 


34  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

nants  of  many  words  in  Hebrew  can  be  pointed  with 
vowels  in  more  than  one  way,  thus  conveying  differ¬ 
ent  ideas.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  noting  the  use 
of  the  same  consonants  in  English  to  mean  different 
things,  according  to  the  vowels  used.  Take  such  con¬ 
sonants  as  f  r ;  with  different  vowels  we  have  f(a)r, 
f(i)r,  f(u)r;  c(a)p,  c(o)p,  c(u)p;  b(a)d,  b(e)d, 
b(i)d,  b(u)d.  Now  and  then  in  the  Old  Testament 
a  slightly  different  pointing  changes  entirely  the  mean- 
ng  of  a  word.  In  Psalm  50:  18,  the  word  translated 
“  thou  consentedst  ”  by  different  vowel  points  reads, 
thou  didst  run.”  Psalm  59:  10  reads  as  it  stands 
“  God  with  his  lovingkindness ;  ”  by  the  simple  change 
o^  one  vowel  point  we  read,  ‘‘  My  God,  by  his  loving¬ 
kindness.” 

The  vowel  points  at  best  are  simply  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  text  as  fixed  by  the  Massoretes  at  the  end 
of  the  seventh  or  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  A.  D. 

24.  Manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament 
are  comparatively  young.  The  oldest  dated  docu¬ 
ment  belonging,  as  we  have  seen,  to  916  A.  D.,  is 
called  the  St.  Petersburg  codex  of  the  prophets.  Dr. 
Ginsburg  puts  a  British  Museum  manuscript  (of  the 
Pentateuch)  (Orient.  No.  4445),  ‘‘  at  least  half  a  cen¬ 
tury  earlier.”  This  consists  of  186  folios,  fifty-five 
of  which  were  added  in  1540  A.  D.  Each  page  car¬ 
ries  three  columns  of  about  twenty-one  lines  each, 
the  Massorah  magna  has  been  put  above  and  below 
the  columns,  while  the  Massorah  parva  has  place  in  the 
side  margins.  The  St.  Petersburg  codex  consists  of 


-’3‘1^iB8^btJ'na3 

•3=w<-iiiij>iffftbp’ii 

•p’7'i<*’‘ii<3'i‘njYp 


3k«r>t»'‘^'7j\ii[>oy 
’rtbijtWTkeniohK 
•  yHk'ii^b'QiiiVe' 
•“vf^1\%ibjnfo 

•owbwybiiyiik^ 


is^Wf^t^SiXibi 

•rt)i»'v...^^,^^va3 
•Tig'btn’'3#3K'7D 

3Hiaxi{^'  1  j 

•*v^‘rife>Si‘7i)bn3"'j 

jh'|hTOytibij3jjiD 

■Si>  '3^/>feahi5n> 
oi^io'xaTjaWv'oj 
■ftfnj»V<^X7733Sw‘> 
wWin3i\yi-uif5nbi 

T'7Mrf7b'ivtf'3n'’3i 

3HVQ4V(t37voH'l|7 

iL  ^1 

yr3X>th  'ir 
kb'ivVn 


#V5*wji7i>*')>y7P 


•<>  •(li^^'Brj'»r'I'J»1»r""^»^’»’»'»B'»«»«‘'»''’»*t’'""''”"”’"  “’'.’'C,^{,'4.'^l,’  vyj"’.v  i,l^,'rr 


iWs 


St.  Petersburg  Hebrew  Codex.  A  I).  916 
isaiab  14  ;  31  10  16  ;  3 


$f'ai 


Printed  Hebrew  Texts 


35 


225  folios,  each  of  two  columns  of  twenty-one  lines. 
Its  system  of  punctuation  is  that  called  the  super- 
linear,  or  sometimes  Babylonian.  It  contains  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  The  Twelve. 

The  oldest  manuscript  of  the  whole  Old  Testament 
is  another  of  the  famous  Firkowitzsch  collection 
brought  from  the  Crimea.  This  one  dates  from  1010 
A.  D.,  though  its  correctness  is  disputed.  The  num¬ 
ber  of  manuscripts  of  the  entire  Hebrew  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  is  very  small,  though  partial  or  fragment  docu¬ 
ments  run  up  into  the  neighborhood  of  1700. 

The  most  of  the  variant  readings  of  these  manu¬ 
scripts  may  be  charged  to  scribal  errors  of  some  kind. 
For  example,  one  manuscript  omits  nine  words  of 
Genesis  19:  20,  and  in  Exodus  8  omits  verses  10  and 
II.  In  I  Chronicles  2,  one  manuscript  has  twenty- 
two  variations  from  the  common  Massoretic  text. 
Errors  from  mistaking  one  Hebrew  letter  for  an¬ 
other  as  seen  in  Section  21,  occur  more  frequently  in 
Hebrew  than  in  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts. 

The  close  resemblance  of  all  existing  Hebrew 
manuscripts  has  led  scholars  to  conjecture  that  at 
some  period  before  the  invention  of  the  Hebrew 
vowel  points,  all  known  Hebrew  manuscripts  were 
either  reduced  to  one  or  all  other  existing  documents 
besides  the  one  model  were  destroyed.  Every  sub¬ 
sequent  copy  was  then  made  from  this  model ;  and 
the  variations  after  the  letters  received  their  vowels, 
were  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

25.  The  first  part  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  put 


36  Hebrew  Text  and  Manuscripts 

into  print  was  the  Psalter,  in  1477.  It  was  printed 
in  Hebrew  with  the  rabbinical  commentary  of  Kim- 
chi,  text  and  commentary  alternating  at  every  verse. 
The  typographical  difficulties  were  so  great  that  only 
the  first  few  psalms  were  printed  with  vowel  points. 
The  work  was  full  of  errors  of  many  kinds.  During 
the  next  ten  years  (1477-87),  at  least  four  editions, 
covering  all  the  Old  Testament  were  printed  in  as 
many  different  cities.  The  first  complete  edition  of 
the  whole  Hebrew  Old  Testament  with  vowel  points 
and  accents  was  finished  at  Soncino,  February  14, 
1488.  It  was  issued  next  at  Naples,  1491-93;  and  a 
third  time  in  the  Brescia  Bible  in  1494 — the  text  used 
by  Luther.  A  fourth  edition  appeared  at  Pesaro  in 
1511-17.  All  these  editions  were  issued  under  the  di¬ 
rection  of  Jewish  authors. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text  to  be  pub¬ 
lished  under  the  direction  and  authority  of  Christian 
influences  was  that  found  in  the  so-called  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot.  This  great  work  carried  in  parallel 
columns  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Septuagint,  the  Vul¬ 
gate,  and  the  Hebrew  paraphrase,  or  Targum,  of  On- 
kelos,  for  the  Pentateuch.  It  was  edited  by  Cardinal 
Ximenes  and  printed  at  the  University  founded  by 
him  at  Alcala,  Spain,  1514-1517.  The  magnitude  of 
this  undertaking  may  be  partially  understood  when  it 
is  said  that  the  Cardinal  had  to  cast  all  his  own  type 
before  he  began  the  printing.  The  critical  value  of 
this  first  polyglot  was  slight,  because  of  its  defects 
and  frequent  errors. 


Lists  of  Hebrew  Variants  37 

The  first  Hebrew  Bible  with  full  vowel  points  and 
all  the  Rabbinic  material  for  interpretation  of  the  text, 
was  printed  by  Daniel  Bomberg  at  Venice,  1516-17. 
This  is  the  first  Hebrew  text  to  divide  Samuel,  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  each  into  two  books ;  and  the  book 
of  Ezra  into  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  so-called 
“  editio  princeps  ”  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  with  all  Rab¬ 
binic  helps,  was  Bomberg’s  second  edition,  edited  by 
Jacob  ben  Chayim,  a  Jew  of  Tunis,  1524-25.  This 
formed  the  standard  edition  of  the  Massoretic  text 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

The  great  Paris  Polyglot,  found  to-day  in  a  few 
of  our  large  libraries,  was  edited  by  le  Jay,  and 
printed  1629-45  in  ten  folio  volumes.  A  rival  of  this 
stupendous  work  was  the  London  Polyglot,  edited  by 
Walton  in  London,  in  1657,  in  six  folio  vofiimes. 

The  Hebrew  Bible  of  to-day  is  divided  into  chap¬ 
ters  and  verses.  This  chapter  division  had  its  origin 
in  the  Vulgate,  and  is  accredited  to  Lanfranc,  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  1089;  to  Stephen 
Langton,  who  died  1228;  and  to  Hugo  de  Sancto 
Caro  in  the  thirteenth  century.  The  numbers  of  the 
chapters  were  first  inserted  in  the  margin,  even  in 
the  Complutensian  Polyglot.  The  first  edition  to 
insert  the  chapter  numbers  in  the  text  was  that  of 
Arias  Montanus,  who  edited  an  interlinear  Latin 
translation  at  Antwerp  in  1571.  The  first  clear  He¬ 
brew  text  to  insert  chapter  numbers  in  the  text  ap¬ 
peared  in  1573-4. 

26.  Naturally  the  printing  of  so  large  a  number 


38  Hebrew  Text  and  Maymscripts 

of  Hebrew  Bibles  at  so  many  places,  and  based  on 
the  readings  of  so  many  different  manuscripts,  led  to 
confusion  in  interpretation,  and  anxiety  regarding  the 
true  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  -This  led  to  the 
doing  of  just  what  appears  in  the  margins  of  our 
English  Bibles,  viz :  the  collecting  of  the  variants  or 
differences  in  the  readings  of  the  known  manuscripts. 
Without  giving  the  history  of  this  kind  of  work,  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  the  first  great  collector  and  pub¬ 
lisher  of  variants  was  Kennicott,  an  Englishman.  He 
employed  a  number  of  scholars,  and  spent  £gooo 
sterling  in  carrying  on  his  work.  At  the  conclu¬ 
sion  he  had  succeeded  in  collecting  and  having 
collected  the  various  readings  of  694  manuscripts  and 
almost  numberless  editions.  These  pertain  to  con¬ 
sonants  only.  His  collection  was  published  at  Ox¬ 
ford,  1776-80,  in  two  folio  volumes. 

A  professor  in  Parma,  Italy,  by  name  of  de  Rossi, 
collected  the  readings  of  732  manuscripts  and  310 
editions.  Of  all  this  number  Kennicott  had  seen  only 
eighty,  so  that  de  Rossi  compared  652  new  ones.  In 
1784-88,  he  published  in  Parma  four  volumes  quarto, 
and  in  1798  a  supplemental  volume. 

Kennicott  and  de  Rossi  together  compared  1,346 
different  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  342  reported  editions,  or  1,686  different  manu¬ 
scripts.  The  value  of  their  work  is  seen  in  that  it 
showed  that  the  underlying  Hebrew  of  all  the  manu¬ 
scripts  examined  by  these  two  scholars  and  their 
assistants  was  practically  one  and  the  same  text. 


First  American  Kdition  of  the  Hebrew  F.ible.  I’liila(leli)hia ,  1814 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

27.  The  Samaritans  were  and  are  a  peculiar  peo¬ 
ple.  Their  idiosyncrasies  are  found  on  every  page  of 
Palestinian  history  since  400  B.  C.  Their  friendship 
for,  or  antipathy  against,  the  Jews  rests  upon  definite 
historical  facts.  Their  religious  proclivities  appear  in 
some  periods  of  history  in  strangely  opposing  rela¬ 
tions.  When  it  was  to  their  advantage  to  be  Jews, 
they  were  Jews,  when  derogatory  to  such  a  claim^ 
they  were  not  Jews.  They  seemed  to  stand  alone 
for  long  centuries,  and  not  to  mingle  freely  with  any 
people.  In  New  Testament  times  they  looked  with 
disdain  upon  the  Jews,  and  this  spirit  was  heartily  re¬ 
ciprocated.  The  few  New  Testament  references  to 
their  beliefs  and  spirit  classify  them  among  the  ene¬ 
mies  of  the  Jews.  It  also  locates  their  seat  of  wor¬ 
ship  at  Shechem  in  opposition  to  that  carried  on  in 
Jerusalem.  The  clannish,  provincial  character  of 
these  people  is  doubtless  due  in  large  part  to  their 
composite  origin.  The  same  spirit  that  made  them 
clannish  also  stimulated  them  in  their  opposition  to 
the  Jews,  and  whatever  they  believed  and  held  sacred. 

28.  These  strange  peoples  owe  their  origin  to  the 
governmental  policy  of  the  new  Assyrian  empire, 
established  by  Tiglath-pileser  III  (745-727  B.  C.). 

39 


40 


The  Samaritan  Pe7itateuch 


From  a  purely  military  control  of  his  provinces,  he 
established  a  civil  government,  imposing  definite  local 
responsibility.  In  order  to  compensate  for  the  de¬ 
ported  peoples  of  any  province,  and  also  to  lessen  the 
liability  to  revolt  among  new  subjects,  he  imported 
peoples  from  distant  provinces  and  compelled  the 
two  to  reside  side  by  side.  This  mingling  and  com¬ 
mingling  of  foreign  peoples  resulted,  within  a  few 
years,  in  a  confusion  of  customs,  religions  and  nation¬ 
alities.  Such  conglomeration  only  served  to  make 
the  province  thus  constituted  less  liable  to  stir  up 
trouble  for  Assyria,  and  better  able  to  take  part  in 
some  local  government. 

29.  The  specific  instances  that  brought  about  the 
beginnings  of  the  Samaritans  occurred  in  722  B.  C., 
when  Sargon  II  captured  Samaria,  the  capital  of  the 
northern  kingdom  of  Israel.  His  own  records  tell 
us  that  he  carried  away  27,290  of  its  inhabitants.  The 
Old  Testament  (2  Kings  17:  24)  records  read  in  these 
words :  “  And  the  king  of  Assyria  brought  men  from 
Babylon  and  from  Cuthah,  and  from  Avva,  and  from 
Hamath  and  Sepharvaim,  and  placed  them  in  the  cities 
of  [the  province  of]  Samaria  instead  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  they  possessed  Samaria,  and  dwelt  in 
the  cities  thereof.”  Sargon  himself  in  his  own  in¬ 
scriptions  which  were  found  in  the  ruins  of  his  old 
palace  at  Khorsabad,  just  north  of  Nineveh  (Annals, 
95-97),  says:  ‘‘The  tribes  of  the  Tamud,  Ibadid, 
Marsiman,  Chayapa,  the  distant  Arabians  who  inhabit 
the  desert,  whom  no  scholar  or  writer  knew,  who  had 


Manasseh  Migrates  to  Samaria  41 

paid  tribute  to  no  king,  I  smote  in  the  service  of 
Asshur  my  lord ;  the  remaining  inhabitants  I  carried 
away  and  settled  in  Samaria/’  In  other  words,  Sargon 
and  2  Kings  agree  on  the  general  policy  that  was 
carried  out  regarding  the  re-populating  of  the  north¬ 
ern  kingdom  from  which  captives  had  been  carried 
to  the  East. 

Both  records  together  give  the  names  of  ten  dif¬ 
ferent  nationalities,  including  the  Jews  already  there, 
who  were  settled  down  in  the  same  territory  together. 
Within  a  few  generations  they  intermarried,  they 
combined  heathen  and  Jehovah  worship,  and  formed 
a  distinct  and  unique  population  (compare  2  Kings 
17:  24-41).  To  this  conglomerate,  other  peoples 
were  added  at  a  later  time,  as  seen  in  Ezra  (4:  2), 
where  the  Samaritans  say  to  the  Jews;  “  Eet  us  build 
with  you  ;  for  we  seek  your  God,  as  ye  do  ;  and  we 
sacrifice  unto  him  since  the  days  of  Esarhaddon,  king 
of  Assyria  [681-668  B.  C.],  who  brought  us  up 
hither.”  In  the  formal  protest  against  the  building 
activities  of  the  Jews,  sent  to  Artaxcrxes,  king  of 
Persia,  the  Samaritans  give  this  astounding  list  of 
foreign  peo]iles  who  made  up  their  populace,  imported 
at  a  still  later  date  (Ezra  4:  9,  10):  ‘‘Then  wrote 
Rehum  the  chancellor,  and  Shimshai  the  scribe,  and 
the  rest  of  their  companions,  the  Dinaites,  and  the 
Apharsathchites,  the  Tarpelites,  the  Apharsites,  the 
Archevites,  the  Baliylonians,  the  Shushanchites,  the 
Dehaites,  the  Elamites,  and  the  rest  of  the  nations 
whom  the  great  and  noble  Osnappar  [Assurbanipal, 


42 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch 


king  of  Assyria,  668-626  B.  C.]  brought  over,  and  set 
in  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  in  the  rest  of  the  country 
beyond  the  River,  and  so  forth.” 

30.  What  a  background  for  the  Samaritans !  Out 
of  this  composite  sprung  the  peoples  who  developed 
such  rivalry  with  the  Jews  as  appears  immediately 
after  the  exile.  The  Samaritan  antagonism  to  Israel 
on  the  latter’s  return  to  Jerusalem,  and  their  attempt 
to  rebuild  their  temple  and  city,  must  have  gradually 
cooled  off.  For  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  find  the  Jews  had 
not  only  formed  friendly  relations  with  all  the  sur¬ 
rounding  peoples,  but  had  freely  intermarried  with 
them.  This  infraction  of  Jewish  law  grieved  Ezra  and 
angered  Nehemiah.  They  adopted  drastic  and  cruel 
measures  to  break  off  all  domestic  relations  with  these 
foreigners  (Neh.  13:  23-27).  In  his  investigations 
Nehemiah  (13:  28)  found  that  “one  of  the  sons  of 
Joiada,  the  son  of  Eliashib  the  high  priest,  was  son- 
in-law  to  Sanballat  the  Horonite,”  therefore  he 
drove  him  out.  Josephus  (Antiquities  ii,  8,  2)  tells 
us  that  this  grandson  of  the  high  priest  was  Manas- 
seh ;  that  he  preferred  rather  to  lose  his  wife  than 
his  prospects  of  the  high  priesthood  in  Jerusalem. 
His  father-in-law  promised  him,  however,  if  he  would 
go  with  his  wife  and  forsake  Jerusalem  that  he  (San¬ 
ballat)  would  build  a  temple  for  him  on  Mount  Geri- 
zim  like  that  in  Jerusalem,  and  furthermore  would 
see  that  the  Persian  king  should  bestow  on  him  the 
high  priesthood.  Elated  by  such  promises,  Manasseh 
forsook  Jerusalem,  his  prospects  of  promotion,  and 


The  Samaritan  Bible 


43 

the  temple,  and  followed  his  wife  and  his  father-in- 
law  to  Samaria. 

31.  This  expulsion  of  Manasseh  from  Jerusalem 
(in  433  B.  C.)  engendered  only  bitterness  and  enmity 
between  the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews.  It  meant,  too, 
for  the  former  a  new  fixed  religious  trend.  The 
temple  is  said  to  have  been  built  on  Mount  Gerizim  as 
a  rival  of  that  at  Jerusalem.  Its  first  high  priest, 
Manasseh,  had  sufficient  regard  for  the  law  of  Jeho¬ 
vah  to  make  it  a  basis  for  worship  on  Gerizim.  It  is 
generally  believed  that  this  was  the  time  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  adopted  as  the  authoritative  scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  Samaritans.  With  Gerizim  as  a  place 
for  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  influential  officials 
and  friends  to  support  him,  Manasseh  could  grad¬ 
ually  crowd  out  and  eradicate  the  various  species  of 
idolatry  that  had  been  dominant  among  these  nations 
since  the  time  of  Sargon  II.  In  fact,  the  worship 
of  Jehovah  and  heathen  divinities  had  existed  side 
by  side,  and  had  even  commingled  for  centuries. 
Manasseh’s  great  missionary  endeavor  had  now  given 
the  worship  of  Israel’s  God  first  place  in  the  hearts 
and  life  of  the  Samaritans,  and  established  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  as  their  sacred  book.  It  is  thought  that  this 
was  the  only  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  at  that 
time  that  had  been  recognized  by  the  Jews  as  holy 
scriptures.  When  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa 
were  adopted  at  a  later  time,  the  Samaritans  refused 
to  adopt  them. 

32.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  not  a  transla- 


44 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch 


tion  of  the  original  Hebrew,  and  so  properly  not  a 
version.  It  is  a  Hebrew  text,  which  has  been  main¬ 
tained  independently  since  the  fifth  century  B.  C.,  but 
written  in  the  old  Hebrew  characters  that  were  ex¬ 
tant  before  the  beginning  of  the  use  of  the  square 
characters.  Hence  it  reaches  back  farther  for  its 
origin  than  any  other  except  the  Hebrew  text  itself. 
Its  adoption  by  the  Samaritans  may  have  been  at¬ 
tended  by  certain  changes  in  the  text  conformable  to 
their  place  of  worship  and  their  peculiar  beliefs.  One 
of  the  most  striking  deliberate  changes  in  the  text  is 
the  substitution,  in  Deuteronomy  27 :  4,  of  “  Gerizim 
for  “  Ebal  ’’  in  the  Hebrew  text,  thus  pointing  to  the 
pre-eminence  of  Gerizim,  the  seat  of  their  temple, 
over  Ebal. 

The  chief  value  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is 
that  it  is  an  independent  text  that  has  had  its  own 
transmission  by  copyists  from  the  time  of  Manasseh 
without  any  known  contact  with  the  numerous  He¬ 
brew  texts.  It  is  thus  a  check  on  the  errors  and  cor¬ 
ruptions  that  may  have  crept  into  the  Hebrew  text 
in  its  numerous  copyings  from  the  fifth  century  B.  C. 
down  to  the  time  of  the  printing  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament. 

33.  The  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  Bible 
of  the  Samaritans  was  known  to  European  scholars 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  Joseph  Scaliger,  the 
famous  linguist,  complained  that  Christians  traveling 
in  the  East  took  no  pains  to  secure  a  copy  of  it.  The 
first  specimen  of  it  to  be  seen  in  Europe  was  brought 


Samaritan  Mannscripts  45 

by  the  Italian  traveler,  Pietro  de  la  Valle,  in  1616. 
He  spent  twelve  years  in  visiting  the  East,  and  pub¬ 
lished  the  best  information  then  extant  about  Turkey, 
Persia,  Egypt  and  India.  The  Samaritans,  though 
now  confined  to  modern  Nablus,  the  ancient  She- 
chem,  consisted  in  his  day  of  several  small  commu¬ 
nities,  located  at  Gaza,  Cairo  and  Damascus.  Pietro 
de  la  Valle,  at  the  urgent  request  of  the  French  am¬ 
bassador  at  Constantinople,  M.  de  Sarcey,  attempted 
to  secure  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Bible.  After  fail¬ 
ure  at  three  of  the  places,  he  finally  succeeded  in  buy¬ 
ing  two  copies  from  the  Samaritan  colony  at  Damas¬ 
cus.  The  first  was  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  in  Samaritan  characters  on  parchment.  This 
he  presented  to  the  ambassador,  who  in  turn  depos¬ 
ited  it  in  the  library  of  the  Oratoire  in  Paris.  The 
second,  a  Samaritan  version  of  the  same,  written  on 
paper,  he  kept  for  himself.  Since  that  day  scholars 
and  travelers  have  secured  a  goodly  number  of  these 
sacred  documents,  and  they  are  now  found  either  as 
private  possessions  or  in  various  libraries  of  Europe 
and  America. 

The  most  sacred  copy  of  the  Samaritan  law  is  se¬ 
curely  kept  and  guarded  in  the  synagogue  at  Nablus. 
It  has  this  subscription :  ‘T,  Abishua,  the  son  of  Phi- 
nehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest, 
wrote  this  copy  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  on 
Mount  Gerizim  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Canaan.^' 
Scholars  put  no  confidence  in  this  subscription. 


46  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch 

Kennicott,  the  textual  critic  (see  §26),  collated  six¬ 
teen  Samaritan  manuscripts.  None  of  these  docu¬ 
ments  stretches  back  into  an  extreme  antiquity.  The 
oldest  manuscript  is  in  Rome  and  is  dated  1227  A.  D., 
though  there  is  another  whose  oldest  portions  claim 
as  its  date  656  A.  D.  Of  modern  prepared  manu¬ 
scripts  there  are  several  in  this  country :  Drew  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary  has  one ;  the  New  York  Public  Li¬ 
brary,  one ;  the  Rev.  W.  Scott  Watson,  one ;  and  the 
Rev.  W.  E.  Barton,  of  Oak  Park,  Ill.,  two. 

34.  The  first  edition  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
was  printed  under  the  supervision  of  John  Morinus 
in  1632,  and  then  in  the  Paris  Polyglot  in  1645.  It 
was  also  included  in  the  London  Polyglot  in  1657. 
It  was  later  published  in  the  square  character  by 
Blayney  of  Oxford,  in  1790.  Kennicott,  who  col¬ 
lated  the  known  manuscripts,  published  the  variants  in 
his  great  work  already  referred  to.  In  1868,  Peter- 
mann  published  a  grammar  of  the  language,  including 
in  it  the  whole  book  of  Genesis,  as  it  was  read  by 
the  at-that-time  high  priest  to  the  little  Samaritan 
body  at  Nablus,  consisting  of  about  165  persons  at 
the  present  time  (1906). 

35.  Now  what  is  the  value  of  this  Samaritan  Pen¬ 
tateuch?  It  diflers  from  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  in 
about  6,000  items.  A  large  part  of  these  consists  of 
insertions  of  vowel  letters,  insertion  or  omission  of 
conjunctions,  and  such  other  variations  as  have  no 
real  effect  on  the  sense.  There  are  more  than  a 
thousand  characteristic  variations  that  have  some  real 


Jacob  ben  Aaron,  present  Hiyh-Priest  of  the  Samaritans  at  Nablous, 

with  Pentateuch  Roll 


-I 


I 


I 


•."V; 


».  ’ 


*-  .  }  '»  .  .•  X  . '  ' 

•*  I  '■■jL:  •■ 

••' ••''■It'  ._• 


f 


;7: '-',  '■•  " 


”;.r  ..  -.  _iUv'  ^ 


\ 


1 


.'.  <  ■ 


„:  i 


\ 


47 


Samaritan  Differences 

significance.  These  variants  from  the  Hebrew  text 
are  of  several  kinds :  ( i )  explanatory  additions  to  the 
text,  as  in  Genesis  4 :  8,  to  the  Hebrew,  “  And  Cain 
said  to  Abel  his  brother,’’  the  Samaritan,  as  well  as 
the  Septuagint,  adds,  “  Let  us  go  into  the  field.” 
Genesis  7 :  3,  to  ”  of  the  fowls  of  the  air,”  the  Sa¬ 
maritan  adds,  “which  are  clean.”  Genesis  44:  31,  to 
“  the  lad  is  not,”  the  Samaritan  adds  “  with  us.” 
(2)  Conjectural  emendations  by  changing  a  letter  or 
two,  either  to  improve  the  sense  or  avoid  some  diffi¬ 
culty  as  in  Genesis  49 :  10,  “  The  sceptre  shall  not  de¬ 
part  from  Judah,  nor  the  ruler’s  staff  from  between 
his  feet,”  by  the  change  of  a  single  letter  (r  to  d)  the 
Samaritan  reads,  “from  amidst  his  standards.”  (3) 
Corrections  to  agree  with  some  parallel  passage. 
Genesis  ii :  lof.,  “  and  he  died  ”  is  added  to  what  is 
said  of  each  patriarch,  as  in  Genesis  5.  In  Exodus 
4:  18,  for  the  Hebrew  “  Jether,”  the  Samaritan  reads 
“Jethro,”  as  in  Exodus  18:  i.  (4)  Corrections  to 
relieve  some  supposed  historical  difficulty ;  thus  in 
Exodus  12:  40,  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  arc 
said  to  cover  the  whole  period  of  wanderings  by  the 
additions  for  “  in  Egypt,”  “  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and 
in  the  land  of  Canaan.”  The  most  notable  variation 
of  this  kind  is  found  in  the  genealogical  tables  of 
Genesis  5  and  ii.  The  Samaritans  seem  to  have 
assumed  that  no  one  would  have  been  more  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  old  at  the  birth  of  his  first 
son ;  when  this  number  is  exceeded,  as  in  the  case  of 
Methuselah  and  Lamech,  one  hundred  years  or  more 


48 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch 


are  taken  from  it.  If  the  remaining  years  were  un¬ 
changed  they  would  survive  the  flood.  But  such 
changes  are  made  as  to  allow  them  all  to  die  in  the 
year  of  the  flood.  (5)  Variations  made  to  present 
Samaritan  ideas,  and  to  remove  anthropomorphisms. 
The  chief  passage  is  Deuteronomy  27 :  4,  where 
“  Ebal  ”  is  displaced  by  “  Gerizim ;  ”  and  this  is  incor¬ 
porated  in  Exodus  20:  17,  and  Deuteronomy  5:  21. 
In  Genesis  49:  7,  Jacob's  rebuke  of  Simeon  and  Levi, 
“  cursed  be  their  anger,"  is  changed  to  read,  ‘‘  noble 
was  their  anger." 

These  are  the  most  important  classes  of  variations 
for  our  study.  They  are  so  important  that  the  edi¬ 
tors  of  the  Teachers’  Variorum  Bible  mention  more 
than  thirty  of  them  in  their  footnotes,  and  every  com¬ 
mentator  of  the  Pentateuch  must  reckon  with  them 
before  he  concludes  his  investigations. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  GREEK  BIBLE:  THE  SEPTUAGINT 

36.  The  military  campaigns  carried  into  Western 
Asia  and  Egypt  by  Alexander  the  Great  opened  the 
door  for  a  literary  conquest.  Alexander’s  troops  were 
the  forerunners  of  Greek  civilization.  Wherever  his 
invincible  battalions  beat  down  the  enemy,  there  the 
Greek  language  secured  a  foothold.  Its  conquests, 
however,  were  most  marked  and  permanent  on  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Here  the  Greek 
language  displaced  in  some  countries  the  native 
tongues,  and  became  the  language  not  only  of  cul¬ 
ture,  but  of  commerce  and  religion.  Greek  literature 
secured  a  firm  footing,  and  prepared  in  a  most  re¬ 
markable  manner  for  the  advent  and  expansion  of 
Christianity  several  centuries  later. 

Alexander’s  conquest  of  Egypt  meant  an  open  door 
into  that  country  for  Greek  settlers,  commerce,  cul¬ 
ture  and  religion.  His  magnificent  foresight  led  to 
the  founding  of  Alexandria,  that  soon  became  the 
most  important  of  all  ports  on  the  shore  lines  of  the 
eastern  section  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Its  attrac¬ 
tive  features  soon  filled  it  with  the  strength  of  Greek 
civilization  and  learning.  But  it  also  became  more 
or  less  a  cosmopolitan  city.  Its  commercial  advan¬ 
tages  drew  to  it  tradesmen  from  all  Oriental  lands. 

49 


50  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

With  their  products  and^artides  of  trade  they  also 
took  with  them  their  customs  and  religion ;  and  in 
turn  themselves  fell  under  the  spell  of  Greek  learning. 

37.  Egypt  had  been  the  home  of  some  Jews  at 
least  since  early  in  the  life  of  Jeremiah  the  prophet 
(comp.  Jeremiah,  chapters  43  and  44).  At  various 
periods  in  their  history  they  had  gone  down  for  one 
reason  or  another  to  sojourn  in  the  land  of  sunshine. 
Famines,  wars,  trading  facilities  and  governmental 
reasons  had  all  conspired  to  bring  about  such  migra¬ 
tions,  Alexander’s  liberal  governmental  policy  en¬ 
couraged  the  settlement  of  Jews  in  Egypt,  and  they 
were  industrious,  thrifty,  temperate,  intelligent,  and 
comparatively  loyal  to  any  ruler  whose  policy  did  not 
hamper  their  religious  liberty. 

It  is  reported  that  in  the  times  of  the  Ptolemies  one- 
third  of  the  population  of  Alexandria  was  Jewish. 
This  large  Jewish  element  was,  of  course,  imbued 
with  Greek  culture  and  civilization.  It  spoke  the 
Greek  language,  and  adopted  some  Greek  methods 
of  thought  and  systems  of  belief.  Its  sympathies 
even  were  falling  away  to  things  Greek  and  to  per¬ 
sons  Greek. 

But  among  this  multitude  of  Greek-speaking  Jews 
there  were  some  who  tenaciously  held  to  the  beliefs 
of  their  fathers.  While  they  believed  in  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  they  were  steeped  in  the 
language  and  culture  of  a  foreign  people.  The  re¬ 
quirements  of  these  very  Jews  brought  about  an  event 
most  important  to  Bible  students — the  translation  of 


Prevalence  of  Septuagint  51 

the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  into  the  Greek  language, 
the  adopted  language  of  these  Egyptian  Jews. 

38.  This  is  the  first  foreign  tongue  into  which  the 
Old  Testament  was  translated.  Therefore  its  why? 
how  ?  wherefore  ?  are  of  intense  interest  to  every 
Bible  student.  This  translation  became  not  simply 
the  Bible  of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  of  Alexandria 
and  Egypt,  but  of  all  the  Jews  in  the  countries  about 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  the  times  of  Christ  and  in 
the  early  Christian  centuries.  It  was  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  of  Paul  and  the  apostles,  and  was  in  constant 
use  by  the  church  fathers  in  the  first  few  centuries  of 
the  Christian  church.  It  was  the  mother-text,  too,  for 
several  translations  which  will  be  examined  farther 
on  in  our  discussion,  and  it  has  been  the  Bible  of  the 
Greek  church  from  its  organization  to  the  present 
day. 

39.  There  are  several  stories  of  the  origin  of  this 
remarkable  book.  One  based  on  the  now  famous 
letter  of  Aristeas,  about  seventy-two  translators  com¬ 
pleting  the  work  in  seventy-two  days,  has  been  shown 
to  be  a  forgery.  When  all  the  stories  have  been  sifted 
there  still  remain  some  kernels  of  truth.  It  seems  to 
be  a  fact  that  the  translation  of  the  Law,  at  least,  was 
made  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (285-247 
B.  C.).  This  bare  fact,  preserved  by  tradition,  has 
been  gorgeously  arrayed  in  the  spurious  letter  of  Aris¬ 
teas,  and  imbedded  as  credible  statements  in  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  many  of  the  early  church  fathers.  The  au¬ 
thority  of  the  king  doubtless  made  for  this  new  trans- 


52  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

lation  a  ready  and  willing  acceptance  among  the  Jews 
of  that  and  succeeding  centuries.  The  name  “  Sep¬ 
tuagint/’  meaning  “  seventy  ”  (often  written  “  LXX  ”) 
was  probably  given  it  on  the  basis  of  a  tradition  of 
seventy  translators,  though  some  have  thought  it 
was  derived  from  the  sanction  of  the  translation  by 
an  Egyptian  Jewish  Sanhedrin  of  seventy  members. 

40.  It  is  now  certain  that  the  books  were  not  all 
translated  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  nor 
were  they  all  translated  by  the  same  person.  The 
work  was  done  by  different  men,  extending  over  a 
period  approximating  150  years,  or  from  285-130 
B.  C.  The  former  fact  is  certain  from  the  varying 
degrees  of  accuracy  observable  in  the  whole  volume. 
The  Pentateuch  is  a  creditable  translation,  especially 
of  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy.  Ecclesiastes  is  so 
slavishly  literal  that  it  is  little  more  than  a  Grsecized 
Hebrew.  Daniel  is  so  poor  a  translation  that  the 
church  ruled  it  out  and  substituted  for  it  the  Greek 
translation  of  Theodotion.  The  book  of  Esther  has 
a  note  attached  to  it  stating  that  it  was  translated  by 
Lysimachus  of  Jerusalem,  and  taken  to  Egypt  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Ptolemy  Philometer,  185  B.  C.  The 
prologue  to  the  book  of  Ecclestiasticus  speaks  of  the 
whole  Old  Testament  as  completed  before  132  B.  C. 
In  some  of  the  books,  notably  Proverbs  and  Jere¬ 
miah,  verses  and  chapters,  and  even  a  body  of  chap¬ 
ters  are  transposed.  For  example,  immediately  after 
Jeremiah  25:  13,  chapters  46-51  are  introduced  in  the 
following  order:  49:  34-39 i  46;  5i  i  47 :  i-7»  7-22; 


53 


Purpose  of  the  Septuagint 

49:  1-5,  28-33,  23-27;  48;  then  the  Hebrew  order  is 
followed  up  from  chapter  25 :  15.  In  i  Samuel  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  either  so  cut  the  Hebrew  text  as  to  relieve  it 
of  difficulties,  or  had  a  dififerent  original  as  the  basis 
of  its  translation. 

41.  These  liberties  taken  with  the  Hebrew  text 
may  be  due  in  large  part  to  the  purpose  for  which  the 
translation  was  made.  The  aim  of  these  translators 
was  to  cast  the  Hebrew  thought  of  the  Old  Testament 
into  Greek  moulds,  so  that  it  might  be  plain  to 
ordinary  Hebrew-Greek  readers.  Therefore  fidelity 
to  sense  was  more  essential  than  fidelity  to  form. 
They  seemed  to  be  perfectly  ready  to  make  such  slight 
changes  or  additions  as  were  necessary  to  clear  up 
the  sense  of  any  passage.  They  now  and  then  sub¬ 
stituted  literal  for  figurative  expressions.  '  They  in¬ 
serted  or  omitted  words  and  clauses,  and  added  or 
changed  clauses  as  they  saw  fit,  as  in  Genesis  4 :  8, 
“  and  Cain  said  unto  Abel,  let  us  go  into  the  field  ” 
(agreeing  with  the  Samaritan  reading).  In  2  Samuel 
6:  5,  they  read,  for  “on  all  manner  of  instruments 
made  of  fir  wood,”  “  with  all  [their]  might  and  with 
singing.”  In  Jeremiah  15  :  19,  the  clause,  “  bring  thee 
again,”  is  read  in  the  Septuagint,  “  give  thee  a  habita¬ 
tion.”  Ezekiel  23 :  42,  “  and  the  voice  of  a  multitude 
being  at  ease  was  with  her,”  is  read  in  the  Septuagint, 
“  And  with  a  loud  noise  did  they  sing  therein.”  The 
Septuagint  omits  in  Ezekiel  32:  31,  “even  Pharaoh 
and  all  his  army,  slain  by  the  sword.”  In  Ezekiel  34: 
16,  “  but  I  will  destroy  the  fat  and  the  strong,”  is 


54  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

made  to  read,  “  and  I  will  keep  the  fat  and  the 
strong.”  Then  in  Exodus  12:  40,  the  same  addition 
is  made  as  already  noted  under  the  ”  Samaritan  Pen¬ 
tateuch.”  These  examples  indicate  a  few  of  the 
multitude  of  variations  that  this,  our  oldest  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  presents.  Doubtless  in 
many  cases  they  were  the  translation  of  a  Hebrew 
text  differing  from  the  one  we  possess  to-day.  This 
fact  is  made  use  of  in  many  passages  of  the  Revised 
Version  as  seen  in  the  marginal  notes  and  readings. 

42.  The  Septuagint,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us, 
embodies  not  simply  a  translation  of  our  Hebrew 
Bible,  but  also  of  many  of  the  so-called  apocryphal 
books.  This  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
of  Alexandria  took  a  more  liberal  view  of  what  con¬ 
stituted  their  sacred  books  than  had  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem.  It  shows  either  that  there  was  not  yet  a 
sharp  distinction  made  between  the  sacred  and  secu¬ 
lar  in  Jewish  literature,  or  that  the  Greek-Jews  wished 
to  include  with  their  sacred  books  other  portions 
of  their  writings.  These  apocryphal  books  are  dis¬ 
tributed  among  the  other  books.  In  order  properly 
to  locate  them,  we  present  below  the  order  of  the 
books  in  the  Septuagint.  The  so-called  historical 
books,  while  differing  from  the  order  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  follow  in  the  same  succession  as  they  do  in  the 
English  Bible,  until  2  Chronicles  is  concluded.  From 
this  point  the  apocryphal  books  will  appear  among 
the  regular  books  in  the  order  found  in  the  best  manu¬ 
scripts,  and  will  be  numbered  successively.  Immedi- 


55 


Contents  of  the  Septuagint 

ately  following  2  Chronicles  we  find  (i)  Esdras, 
followed  by  Ezra  (called  2  Esdras).  Then  follow 
in  order,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solo¬ 
mon,  Job,  (2)  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  (3)  Wisdom  of 
Sirach  (or  Ecclesiasticus),  Esther,  with  (4)  The  Rest 
of  Esther,  (5)  Judith,  (6)  Tobit,  Hosea,  Amos, 
Micah,  Joel,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk, 
Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  Isaiah,  Jere¬ 
miah,  (7)  Baruch,  Lamentations,  (8)  Epistle  of  Jere¬ 
miah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  opened  by  (9)  Susanna ;  after 
Daniel  3:  23,  (10)  The  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 
after  the  close  of  Daniel,  (ii)  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
(12)  I  Maccabees,  (13)  2  Maccabees,  (14)  3  Macca¬ 
bees,  and  in  some  manuscripts  (15)  4  Maccabees.  Sev¬ 
eral  of  the  apocryphal  books  are  not  known  to  have 
existed  in  Hebrew.  These  are  The  Rest  of  Esther,  a 
part  of  Baruch,  The  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  and 
2  Maccabees.  On  the  completion  of  the  canon 
of  the  Old  Testament,  even  those  written  in  Hebrew 
were  left  out.  This  fact  left  them  outside  the  regard 
given  the  canonical  books,  and  they  practically  ceased 
to  be  copied  by  the  biblical  scribes.  Thus  we  know 
them  almost  exclusively  in  translations.  Jerome’s 
fidelity  to  what  he  knew  to  be  the  canonical  books 
led  him  to  disregard  them  in  his  great  work.  Their 
appearance  in  the  Vulgate  was  in  spite  of  Jerome’s 
opinion  of  their  real  value. 

43.  We  have  already  noted  the  fact  that  our  old¬ 
est  Hebrew  manuscript  dates  from  the  tenth  century 
— more  than  a  thousand  years  after  the  last  word  of 


56  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

the  Old  Testament  was  written.  Though  the  original 
Septuagint  translation  was  made  after  the  close  of 
the  Hebrew  canon,  there  are  manuscripts  of  this 
version  that  antedate  the  oldest  known  Hebrew  manu¬ 
scripts  by  five  or  six  hundred  years.  This  fact  makes 
them  of  superior  importance  in  determining  the  early 
text  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament. 

Manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  are  fortunately  quite 
plentiful  in  the.  great  libraries  of  Europe.  They  are 
written  in  two  kinds  of  script.  Those  dating  from 
the  fourth  to  the  ninth  centuries  were  written  in 
uncials,  that  is,  in  large,  separate  letters,  practically 
capitals ;  those  from  the  ninth  century  to  the  close 
of  pen  transcriptions  in  cursives,  that  is,  small,  run¬ 
ning-hand  script.  The  uncial  manuscripts  are  desig¬ 
nated  by  capital  letters,  and  the  cursives  by  numbers. 
There  are  about  thirty  known  uncials,  more  or  less 
fragmentary,  stretching  over  five  centuries  of  time. 
The  great  importance  of  these  documents  requires 
some  further  notice. 

44.  The  oldest  scrap  of  a  Septuagint  manuscript 
is  a  piece  of  papyrus  found  at  Oxyrhynchus,  in  Egypt, 
in  1903,  shown  in  the  illustration  (opposite  page). 
There  are  also  two  others  in  the  British  Museum  of 
the  third  century,  containing  Genesis  14:  17,  and  a 
fragment  of  a  Psalter  containing  Psalms  12:  7  to  15: 
4  respectively.  There  are  four  invaluable  large,  an¬ 
cient  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  now  available  for 
the  use  of  Bible  students:  (i)  The  oldest  and  most 
complete  known  manuscript  of  the  Greek  Bible,  cov- 


Septuagint  Papyrus  of  the  'I'hird  Century,  from  Oxyrhyuclius,  Kgypt 

Genesis  24  ;  38-43 


i 


Great  Septuagint  Mayiuscripts  57 

ering  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  Codex  Vati- 
canus  (marked  “B”  in  catalogues),  in  the  Vatican 
library  at  Rome.  It  was  written  in  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury.  It  lacks  only  Genesis  i :  i  to  46 ;  28 ;  2  Kings 
2:  5-7,  10-13;  Psalms  106:  27  to  138:  6  in  the  Old 
Testament;  the  books  of  Maccabees  are  not  in  it. 
This  manuscript  formed  the  basis  of  our  current  crit¬ 
ical  edition  of  the  Septuagint. 

The  next  most  valuable  manuscript  text  is  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus  (marked  “A”  in  catalogues), 
in  the  British  Museum.  It  is  estimated  to  have  been 
written  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  This,  too, 
covers  the  entire  Bible.  But  the  following  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  lacking:  Genesis  14:  14-17; 
15:  1-5,  16-19;  16:  6-9;  I  Kings  12:  20  to  14:  9; 
Psalms  1 :  20  to  80:  ii.  It  contains  all  four  books  of 
the  Maccabees,  and  “  the  Epistle  of  Athanasius  to 
Marcellinus  on  the  Psalter ;”  a  summary  of  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  Psalms  by  Eusebius  stands  before  the 
Psalms.  At  the  close  of  the  150  Psalms  stands  the 
apocryphal  151st  Psalm,  also  some  canticles  or  chants 
from  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  such  as  Deu¬ 
teronomy  32  and  I  Samuel  2:  i-io. 

The  third  prize  manuscript  of  the  Septuagint  is  the 
Codex  Sinaiticus  (marked  ‘‘S’’).  Though  this  docu¬ 
ment  ranks  in  age  with  the  Vatican  manuscript,  its 
fragmentary  character  would  rather  give  it  third  place 
in  value.  It  was  discovered  in  1844  by  Tischendorf  in  the 
monastery  of  St.  Catharine,  at  Mt.  Sinai  (§115).  In  a 
later  visit  he  secured  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  leaves 


58  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  entire  New  Testament, 
aU  of  which  ultimately  found  their  home  in  the  Im¬ 
perial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  The  parts  of  the 
manuscript  intact  for  scholars  are  fragments  of  Gen¬ 
esis  23  and  24,  of  Numbers  5,  6  and  7;  i  Chronicles 
9:  27  to  19:  17;  Ezra  9:  9  to  10:  44;  Nehemiah,  Es¬ 
ther,  Tobit,  Judith,  i  Maccabees,  4  Maccabees,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Lamentations  i :  i  to  2:  20;  Joel,  Obadiah, 
Jonah,  Nahum  to  Malachi,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Eccle¬ 
siastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wis¬ 
dom  of  Sirach,  and  Job. 

The  fourth  important  manuscript  Of  the  Septuagint 
is  the  Codex  Ephraemi  (marked  *‘C’’),  written  in 
the  fifth  century,  now  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  in 
Paris.  This  is  a  palimpsest ;  that  is,  the  biblical  manu¬ 
script  has  been  partly  erased,  and  over  it  is  written  a 
treatise  in  Syriac  composed  by  St.  Ephraem,  of  Syria, 
somewhere  about  the  twelfth  century.  It  is  with 
great  difficulty  that  some  parts  of  the  underlying  bib¬ 
lical  text  can  be  made  out.  There  are  sixty-four 
leaves  containing  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  These 
are  parts  of  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and  the  Song  of  Solo¬ 
mon. 

45.  The  following  are  some  of  the  most  valuable 
smaller  or  fragmentary  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint. 
The  letter  or  number  in  parentheses  following  the 
name  is  the  catalogue  designation  of  the  document : 
Codex  Cottonianus  (D)  is  a  charred  manuscript  of 
the  fifth  century,  now  in  the  British  Museum.  It 


Fragment  of  Septuagint  written  in  (Ireek  Uncials  on  Pajiyrus,  alxnp  'I'hlrd 
Century.  Found  in  F.gypt  in  1892.  Now  in  the  ISritish  Museum 
l’a])yrus  contains  I’salms  11  ;  7  to  15  ;  4 


Smaller  Septuagint  Manuscripts  59 

was  partially  destroyed  by  a  fire  in  the  library  of  Sir 
R.  Cotton  in  1731.  It  was  written  in  a  beautiful 
uncial  character,  and  furnished  with  250  illustrations 
that  carry  the  evidence  of  close  relation  to  the  mosaics 
of  San  Marco  in  Venice.  Had  not  the  text  been 
carefully  collated  before  the  fire,  its  real  value  would 
have  been  greatly  diminished. 

The  Bodleian  Genesis  (E)  at  Oxford,  was  written 
in  the  eighth  century.  It  contains  in  a  good  state  of 
preservation  Genesis  i:  i  to  14 :  5 ;  18:  25  to  20:  13; 
24:  55  to  42:  17.  Codex  Ambrosianus  (F)  at  Milan, 
written  in  the  fifth  century.  It  carries  three  columns 
to  the  page,  and  is  fully  punctuated,  accented  and  sup¬ 
plied  with  breathings.  Its  contents  are  Genesis  31:15 
to  Joshua  12:  12,  with  a  few  lacunae  here  and  there; 
also  fragments  of  Isaiah  and  Malachi.  The  Vienna 
Genesis  (L),  written  in  silver  letters  on  purple  vel¬ 
lum,  belongs  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century.  It  con¬ 
tains  the  whole  of  Genesis.  Codex  Basiliano-Vati- 
canus  (N)  at  Rome  and  Venice,  belongs  to  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century.  It  consists  of  two  volumes,  some¬ 
what  mutilated,  and  is  written  in  sloping  uncials.  Its 
special  importance  is  due  to  its  having  been  used  with 
the  Codex  Vaticanus  (B)  as  the  basis  of  the  Roman 
edition  of  the  Septuagint  issued  in  1587. 

These  are  a  few  of  the  more  than  thirty  uncial  man¬ 
uscripts  of  the  Septuagint  now  known  to  be  in  exist¬ 
ence.  Of  cursives,  there  are  more  than  300  (Holmes 
and  Parsons  name  313,  though  it  is  known  that  their 
collators  failed  properly  to  describe  the  writing  of 


6o  The  Greek  Bible :  The  Septuagint 

some  of  the  texts).  Many  of  these  have  not  been 
carefully  studied  in  connection  with  the  issuance  of 
Septuagint  texts. 

46.  The  first  printed  copy  of  the  Septuagint  was 
embodied  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  issued  under 
the  supervision  of  Cardinal  Ximenes  in  15 14-15 17. 
The  Aldus  edition,  based  on  manuscripts  in  Venice, 
appeared  in  1518.  But  the  great  edition  of  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  in  those  centuries  was  that  published  under 
the  patronage  of  Pope  Sixtus  in  1587.  The  Codex 
Alexandrinus,  supplemented  by  other  manuscripts, 
was  published  in  1707-1728  by  Grabe.  The  greatest 
work  of  all  was  that  issued  at  Oxford  by  Holmes  and 
Parsons,  1798-1827.  This  gives  us  the  Roman  edition 
of  1587,  with  variant  readings  of  about  325  manu¬ 
scripts.  Tischendorf  published  a  revision  of  the 
Roman  texts  with  variants  from  S,  A  and  C.  Swete 
published  a  three-volume  edition  of  the  Septuagint 
(1887-1894),  according  to  the  best  extant  manuscript 
of  each  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  all  the  variants 
in  three  or  four  of  the  next  best  manuscripts.  A  new 
Cambridge  edition  is  now  being  edited  by  Brooke 
and  McLean  that  will  give  a  much  larger  amount  of 
variant  material  for  critical  work,  collated  from  the 
different  types  of  text. 

47.  What  can  be  the  inherent  value  of  such  a  mass 
of  manuscripts,  dating  from  the  third  to  the  sixteenth 
centuries?  They  were  inscribed  in  uncial  and  cursive 
writing,  by  various  writers,  and  are  preserved  with 
the  most  scrupulous  care.  The  whole  purpose  of 


Value  of  the  Septuagint  6 1 

scholars  is  (i)  to  determine  as  near  as  may  be,  by 
a  study  of  all  the  best  manuscripts,  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint  as  it  was  originally  translated  from  the 
Hebrew;  (2)  to  determine  by  the  use  of  that  best 
text  of  the  Septuagint  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament  from  which  the  Septuagint  translation  was 
made;  (3)  to  determine,  by  a  comparison  of  this  text 
with  the  Massoretic  text,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  the 
original  form  of  the  Hebrew  books  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament.  Such  determinations,  even  approximately, 
clear  up  many  serious  difficulties,  and  aid  us  greatly 
in  translating  the  original  text  into  good  idiomatic 
English.  Even  a  glance  at  the  footnotes  of  the 
Variorum  Teachers’  Bible  shows  how  useful  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  variations  are  in  the  fixing  of  the  meaning  of 
the  original  text.  The  value  of  the  Septuagint  ex¬ 
pands  as  one  studies  it,  and  indicates  that  that  will 
be  one  of  the  fruitful  fields  of  research  in  the  near 
future,  for  finding  as  near  as  possible  the  Hebrew 
text  that  was  in  use  in  the  centuries  preceding  the 
Christian  era,  when  from  it  the  Septuagint  was  trans¬ 
lated. 


CHAPTER  VI 


RIVAL  GREEK  BIBLES  AND  REVISIONS  OF 
THE  SEPTUAGINT 

48.  The  Septuagint  was  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  times  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  From  its  pages, 
in  its  language,  the  New  Testament  writers  usually 
quoted.  The  early  Christian  church  all  about  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  adopted  generally 
that  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  by  the 
use  of  it  that  they  proved  that  Jesus  was  the  prom¬ 
ised  Messiah,  that  all  the  law  and  the  prophets  were 
fulfilled  in  him.  Such  general  adoption  and  use  of 
its  form  and  thought  by  the  leaders  of  the  Christian 
church,  naturally  aroused  the  antagonism  of  the  Jews, 
who  could  not  agree  with  the  new  sect.  This 
estrangement  of  the  Jews  from  their  formerly  cher¬ 
ished  Old  Testament  led  them  to  consider  very  cau¬ 
tiously  how  they  could  avoid  the  adoption  of  the  same 
thought  and  creed  that  inspired  the  followers  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  Often  when  the  Septuagint  was  quoted 
against  them  the  Jews  affirmed  something  wrong  in 
the  translation.  Such  opposition  could  not  long  re¬ 
main  fruitless.  The  Jews  finally  repudiated  the  time- 
old  translation  as  the  Christians’  Old  Testament,  and 
resorted  to  other  means  to  better  their  doctrinal  rivals 
and  secure  for  themselves  an  authoritative  transla- 
62 


63 


Aquila! s  Greek  Version 

tion  of  their  own  Hebrew  Scriptures.  In  fact,  it  was 
not  long  before  there  were  several  rival  translations, 
each  bidding  for  favor  as  being  the  most  faithful  ren¬ 
dering  of  the  Hebrew  original. 

49.  The  first  scholar  to  respond  to  the  call  for  a 
new  translation  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  was  Aquila. 
From  the  scanty  information  that  we  can  find  he  was 
a  proselyte  to  Judaism  from  Sinope  in  Pontus,  Asia 
Minor,  who  flourished,  on  the  authority  of  Epiphanius, 
about  128  A.  D.  He  is  reported  by  Jerome  to  have 
been  a  pupil  of  Rabbi  Akiba  between  95  and  135  A.  D. 
Such  training  would  have  made  him  a  reverer  of  the 
very  letter  of  the  text,  as  he,  in  his  subsequent  work, 
proved  to  be.  Aquila’s  translation  of  the  Hebrew  is 
slavishly  literal,  trying  to  translate  every  word  and 
particle,  regardless  of  literary  form,  the  requirements 
of  the  Greek  language,  or  the  conveyance  of  clear 
thought.  He  often  ‘‘  follows  Hebrew  idioms  in  vio¬ 
lation  of  Greek  usage,”  casts  new  words  to  suit  his 
convenience,  carries  Hebrew  words  bodily  over  into 
Greek  spelling,  and  generally  violates  principles  of 
grammar  and  syntax  to  put  the  Hebrew  into  a  cold, 
literal  Greek.  Such  renderings  have  some  value  for 
the  study  of  etymology,  lexicography  and  the  text, 
but  are  far  from  being  helpful  in  an  exegetical  line. 
Aquila’s  translation  soon  came  to  the  front  among 
the  anti-Christian  Jews,  and  became  their  official 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  transla¬ 
tion  is  known  to  have  been  in  use  by  177  A.  D.,  as 
Irenaeus  makes  mention  of  it.  Some  writers  identify 


64 


Rival  Greek  Bibles 


Aquila  with  Onkelos,  the  author  to  whom  the  princi¬ 
pal  Targum  of  the  Pentateuch  is  ascribed.  But  the 
evidence  is  not  such  as  to  convince  the  most  careful 
or  thoughtful  of  students  of  the  literature  of  that 
early  period  of  Semitic  culture. 

50.  This  rival  Jewish  translation  aroused  the  Chris¬ 
tians  of  the  second  century,  and  a  new  translator 
appeared  in  the  person  of  Theodotion,  who  is  thought 
by  every  reference  to  him  to  have  been  an  Ebionite 
Christian  of  Pontus,  or  of  Ephesus.  His  translation 
is  located  between  180  and  192  A.  D.,  in  the  reign 
of  Commodus.  It  was  based  on  the  Hebrew,  and  in 
style  and  character,  in  some  parts,  closely  followed 
the  Septuagint.  In  fact,  it  is  called  by  some  scholars 
rather  a  revision  of  that  venerable  version  than  a  new 
translation.  It  is  clear  that  its  purpose  often  seems 
to  have  been  to  make  a  correction  of  that  work. 
Theodotion,  in  contrast  with  Aquila,  gave  a  free  ren¬ 
dering  of  the  Hebrew,  and  had  due  regard  to  correct 
and  idiomatic  Greek.  He  is  the  only  one  of  the  three 
translators  (Aquila,  Theodotion  and  Symmachus) 
that  paid  any  attention  to  the  Apocrypha.  He  in¬ 
serted  the  postscript  to  Job,  and  the  additions  to  Dan¬ 
iel,  viz. :  Susanna,  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  and 
Bel  and  the  Dragon.  His  translation  soon  won  its 
way  in  the  Christian  church  for  its  fidelity  to  the 
Hebrew  and  its  improvement  on  the  translations  of 
some  of  the  books  of  the  Septuagint.  Indeed,  this 
translation  became  so  much  in  favor  that  it  exercised 
a  large  influence  upon  the  further  revisions  of  the 


■■‘Jty  ■r^f,  i’"'  *•  -  <  '  il  I  ^ 

IH!«V5  ^1«re!(»wv^*9V  'oj»*wftaw«v^*9^  Ta.^w?wH»»'s'' 

'91^  w 

V^‘ 

»l  \^4< 


K  \' 


m»  n>4T*«^ y  y^  ’  ^  »' 


/  ■ni^  frrpf  mvi/iv  ■/•# 

■  '  \^in  ~' 


. . 

.-v^vas 


iXilE>YCjAJC^.tV^  /.  ‘^V 

s  br 


r»  •»  !  ' '  '  i^l  / 

>';{■■<;'  -'i. 4; 


A(iuil;i’s  Version  of  (jreek  Hil)le  (?^y).  A  I’alimpsest  with  Mehrew 
written  over  tlic  Cireek.  2  Kings  23  :  15-19 


65 


Symmachus'  Greek  Version 

Septuagint.  Theodotion’s  own  version  of  Daniel  was 
so  much  superior  to  that  of  the  Septuagint  that  it 
soon  displaced  that  version  in  the  Septuagint  manu¬ 
scripts.  The  old  Septuagint  original  of  Daniel  was 
so  completely  discarded  that  only  a  single  copy,  writ¬ 
ten  in  the  ninth  century,  has  come  down  to  us.  The 
book  of  Job  in  the  Septuagint  lacked  about  one-sixth 
of  the  matter  found  in  the  Hebrew  text.  These  gaps 
have  been  filled  out  from  Theodotion's  translation. 

51.  The  third  great  translator  of  the  Hebrew  into 
Greek  in  this  period  was  Symmachus,  who,  on  the 
authority  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  was  an  Ebionite. 
His  activity  as  a  translator  fell  within  the  reign  of 
Severus  193-21 1  A.  D.  His  translation  is  remarkable 
for  its  fidelity  to  the  original  Hebrew,  for  its  pure  and 
even  elegant  Greek,  and  for  its  display  of  literary  skill 
as  a  piece  of  good  literature.  Like  Jerome,  he  had 
a  high  conception  of  a  translator’s  duty.  Sym¬ 
machus’  translation  is  referred  to  in  Jerome  in  a 
second  edition.  Jerome  had  high  regard  for 
Symmachus,  and  made  use  of  him  in  his  great  work. 
In  fact,  Jerome  characterized  these  three  versions  by 
saying  “  Aquila  translates  word  for  word,  Symmachus 
follows  the  sense,  and  Theodotion  differs  slightly 
from  the  Septuagint.”  Symmachus’  influence  on  our 
English  Bible  came  by  way  of  Jerome’s  Vulgate,  upon 
which  the  translators  of  the  Authorized  Version  leaned 
so  heavily. 

52.  The  greatest  biblical  scholar  of  the  early 
Christian  centuries  was  Origen.  He  was  born  at 


66 


Rival  Greek  Bibles 


Alexandria,  i86  A.  D.,  and  was  surnamed  Adaman- 
tios  because  of  his  untiring  energy.  His  early  life 
and  training,  his  skill  as  a  schoolmaster,  and  the 
broad  scope  of  his  scholarship,  were  famed  and  lauded 
all  down  the  Christian  centuries,  and  are  an  inspiration 
to  us  of  later  days.  His  tremendous  energy  and  skill 
in  biblical  lines  of  research  laid  the  foundation  for 
critical  biblical  study.  Indeed,  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century  marked  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  bibli¬ 
cal  textual  study.  Origen  found  in  existence  and  in 
use  in  his  day,  besides  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew, 
the  Septuagint  and  the  three  Greek  versions  noted 
above.  He  complained  that  every  manuscript  con¬ 
tained  a  different  text  from  its  next.  He  conceived 
the  idea  of  carefully  studying  by  comparison  all  these 
different  versions  and  manuscripts,  and  of  producing 
therefrom  the  best  possible  manuscript  or  version.  In 
order  to  accomplish  this,  not  only  for  himself  but  for 
all  who  should  study  the  Scriptures,  he  planned  a  stu¬ 
pendous  work,  called  “The  Hexapla,”  upon  which  he, 
with  helpers,  occupied  twenty-eight  years  of  his  life. 
It  was  the  arrangement  in  six  parallel  columns  of  (i) 
the  Hebrew  text  then  current,  (2)  this  same  Hebrew 
text  put  into  Greek  letters,  (3)  the  Greek  translation 
of  Aquila,  (4)  the  Greek  translation  of  Symmachus, 
(5)  the  Septuagint,  revised  by  himself,  and  (6)  the 
Greek  translation  of  Theodotion.  These  versions 
were  arranged  so  carefully  and  adjusted  so  nicely 
that  the  ordinary  Bible  student  who  could  read  Greek 
could  make  use  of  this  Hexapla. 


67 


Origen's  Purpose  and  Method 

origen’s  hexapla  (six-fold) 

/ 


Hebrew. 

Hebrew  in 
Greek 

Letters. 

Aquila. 

Symmachus. 

Origen’s 

Septuagint. 

Theodotion. 

This  was 

For  those 

The  first 

The  most 

By  the  use 

The  sec- 

p  r  a  c  tically 

who  could 

anti-C  h  r  i  s- 

artistic  liter- 

of  other 

0  n  d  rival 

the  Masso- 

not  read  the 

tian  version 

ary  transla- 

manuscripts 

version  of 

retie  He- 

Hebrew, 

intended  to 

tion  of  the 

and  the  He- 

the  Septua- 

brew  text 

that  they 

displace  the 

Hebrew  into 

brew, Origen 

gint,  so  val- 

current  to- 

might  get  as 

Septuagint 

Greek. 

tried  to  get 

uable  that 

day.  ^ 

near  as  pos¬ 
sible  to  the 
original, and 
to  its  correct 
p  ro  n  uncia- 
tion. 

among  the 
Jews. 

the  best  pos¬ 
sible  Septu¬ 
agint  ver¬ 
sion. 

its  Daniel  is 
found  in  the 
Septuag  i  n  t 
proper. 

For  some  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  chiefly  the 
poetical,  Origen  added  a  fifth  (Quinta),  a  sixth 
(Sexta),  and  even  a  seventh  (Septima)  Greek  text. 
This  made  a  seventh,  eighth  and  ninth  parallel  col¬ 
umn.  Then  there  seems  to  have  been  extant  an  edi¬ 
tion  which  consisted  of  the  four  Greek  versions,  the 
four  columns  to  the  right,  as  seen  above,  called  the 
Tetrapla,  or  four-fold  version.  Such  a  version  would 
give  the  reader  a  comparative  view  of  the  work  of  all 
previous  translators  into  the  Greek,  and  of  Origen’s 
text. 

53.  The  real  purpose  of  Origen’s  Hexapla  was 
not  a  restoration  of  the  original  text  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  but  to  make  it  correctly  and  adequately  re])rcsent 
the  Hebrew  original.  The  fifth  column  of  the  Hex¬ 
apla  is  the  most  important,  touching  Origen’s  work, 
for  it  was  his  revision  of  the  Septuagint.  He  revised 


68 


Rival  Greek  Bibles 


the  regular  Septuagint  text  on  this  wise :  If  the  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Septuagint  dillered  he  chose  that  one 
that  was  the  best  translation  of  the  Hebrew  original. 
In  case  there  were  words  in  the  Hebrew  that  had  no 
adequate  representation  in  the  Septuagint,  he  in¬ 
serted  in  the  Septuagint  text  such  translation  of  these 
words  as  was  found  in  one  of  the  other  three  Greek 
versions,  preferably  from  Theodotion.  Such  insertion 
was  marked  by  an  asterisk  (*  or  ♦)  at  the  beginning, 
and  a  metobelus  (v)  at  the  close  of  the  passage.  A 
passage  which  was  found  in  the  Septuagint,  but  had 
no  equivalent  in  the  Hebrew  was  marked  in  Origen’s 
Septuagint  by  an  obelus  ( — ),  or  a  horizontal  line, 
but  it  was  not  expunged. 

These  are  a  few  of  the  critical  marks  introduced 
by  Origen  to  specify  the  sources  and  variations  of 
his  version  of  the  Septuagint.  He  did  a  large  service 
for  the  biblical  scholarship  of  his  own  and  succeed¬ 
ing  centuries.  The  magnitude  of  this  Hexapla  can 
scarcely  be  conceived  until  we  realize  that  the  whole 
Hebrew  Bible  carried  out  on  that  plan  would  have 
filled,  according  to  Professor  Nestle’s  calculation, 
more  than  6,000  leaves,  or  12,000  pages  of  carefully 
copied  and  critically  worked  over  Hebrew  and  Greek 
manuscripts. 

54.  Our  only  descriptions  of  Origen’s  Hexapla, 
until  recently,  have  been  those  of  Eusebius,  the  his¬ 
torian,  of  Epiphanius,  and  of  Jerome,  and  scattered 
specimens  in  biblical  manuscripts.  In  1896,  however, 
Giovanni  Mercati  discovered  in  a  palimpsest  manu- 


Revision  of  Eusebrns  69 

script  of  the  tenth  century,  in  the  Ambrosian  library, 
in  Milan,  the  first  continuous  fragments  of  a  copy  of 
the  Psalter  of  the  Hexapla.  It  gives  us  a  good  idea 
of  the  tremendous  amount  of  close  critical  work  neces¬ 
sary  to  finish  one  page  of  that  Hexapla.  Again,  in 
1898,  there  was  found  in  the  so-called  Genizah  col¬ 
lection  of  palimpsests  brought  to  Cambridge  from 
Cairo,  Egypt,  a  Hexaplar  fragment  of  Psalm  22, 
dating  probably  from  the  eighth  centur>’.  Though  this 
double  leaf,  containing  105  lines  of  Hebrew,  is  badly 
worn,  enough  remains  to  make  it  plain  that  Origen’s 
method  was  to  put  one  Hebrew  word,  and  at  most 
two  in  a  line,  in  the  first  column,  and  its  exact  equiva¬ 
lent  in  the  Greek  column.  This  plan  was  followed  in 
both  the  Milan  and  the  Cairo  palimpsests.  The  entire 
Psalter  written  as  were  these  lines  would  cover 
about  4,50  leaves,  and  include  19,000  words. 

Origen’s  great  Hexapla  has  survived  only  in  frag¬ 
ments  scattered  here  and  there  in  the  works  of  such 
ancient  writers  as  Eusebius,  or  noted  in  the  margins 
of  manuscripts.  The  original  manuscript  seems  to 
have  been  preserved  in  the  library  at  Caesarea,  and  was 
seen  there  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century. 
At  this  place  Jerome  consulted  it ;  and  here  Bishop 
Paul  of  Telia  in  Mesopotamia  translated  Origen’s 
fifth  column,  or  his  Septuagint  revision,  into  Syriac, 
617-618  A.  D.  In  his  translation  he  copied  with  care 
Origen’s  critical  symbols.  A  part  of  Bishop  Paul’s 
work,  written  in  the  eighth  century,  is  now  found  in 
the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan.  This  contains  the 


70 


Rival  Greek  Bibles 


prophets  and  the  most  of  the  Hagiographa.  The 
Codex  Sarravianus  (G)  at  Leyden,  containing  the 
Pentateuch,  with  portions  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  is  a 
manuscript  of  Origen’s  fifth  column,  partially  provided 
with  his  critical  symbols.  It  probably  dates  from  the 
fifth  century — less  than  300  years  after  Origen  laid 
down  his  work.  Twenty-two  leaves  of  this  manu¬ 
script  are  in  Paris  (Codex  Colbertinus),  and  one  in 
St.  Petersburg.  The  Codex  Coislinianus  (M)  in 
Paris,  from  the  seventh  century,  covering  Genesis  to 
I  Kings  8 :  40,  with  some  breaks,  contains  a  Hexaplar 
text.  Field  carefully  collated  and  published  in  two 
large  volumes  the  various  known  material  of  Origen’s 
Hexapla  in  1875. 

55-  Origen’s  work  did  not  unify  existing  Greek 
texts  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  rather  opened  the 
door  for  revisions.  Three  great  scholars  arose  in 
the  third  century  who  gave  themselves  to  this  work : 
(i)  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  (260-340),  the  first  church 
historian,  assisted  by  Pamphilus  or  vice  versa,  issued 
with  all  its  critical  marks  the  fifth  column  of  the  Hex¬ 
apla,  with  alternative  readings  from  the  other  columns, 
for  use  in  Palestine.  The  Emperor  Constantine  gave 
orders  that  fifty  copies  of  this  edition  should  be  pre¬ 
pared  for  use  in  the  churches. 

(2)  Lucian  of  Samosata  prepared  a  revision  of  the 
Septuagint  that  far  outstripped  that  of  Eusebius  in 
original  methods.  He  supplied  its  omissions  from 
other  Greek  versions,  and  sometimes  modified  its  ex¬ 
pressions;  where  the  translation,  in  his  opinion,  did 


Manuscripts  of  the  Revisions  71 

not  correctly  represent  the  Hebrew,  he  added  a  cor¬ 
rect  translation  of  the  passage  in  question.  He  did 
not  hesitate  to  add  explanatory  clauses,  and  even  to 
substitute  synonymous  words  where  it  would  make 
the  meaning  clearer.  His  revision  was  adopted 
throughout  Asia  Minor  from  Antioch  to  Constanti¬ 
nople.  Lucian  fell  a  martyr  to  the  persecution  of 
Maximus  in  31 1. 

(3)  The  person  and  work  of  Hesychius  are  quite 
unknown.  He  is  thought  to  have  been  the  martyr- 
bishop  mentioned  in  Eusebius,  who  fell  under  the  per¬ 
secution  that  destroyed  Lucian.  His  revision  was 
adopted  as  the  Septuagint  in  Alexandria  and  Egypt, 
for  he  was  one  of  the  Alexandrian  school  of  learned 
men. 

These  three  revisers  furnished  Greek  revisions  for 
all  the  eastern  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea. 
Eusebius  for  Palestine,  Lucian  for  Asia  Minor,  and 
Hesychius  for  Egypt. 

56.  The  manuscripts  that  preserve  the  above  re¬ 
visions  of  the  Septuagint  are  not  numerous.  There 
is  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  a  palimpsest,  Codex 
Dublinensis  Rescriptus,  similar  to  the  Codex  Ephnem, 
consisting  of  only  eight  leaves  of  Isaiah.  It  was 
written  in  Egypt  in  the  sixth  century,  and  is  credited 
with  relations  with  the  revision  of  Hesychius  The 
finest  manuscript  relative  to  this  group  of  revisions  is 
the  Codex  Marchalianus  in  the  Vatican  library  at 
Rome.  It  was  written  in  Egypt  in  the  sixth  century, 
and  contains  the  books  of  the  prophets.  The  editor 


72 


Rival  Greek  Bibles 


of  this  manuscript,  Dr.  Ceriani,  shows  that  it  was 
originally  the  text  of  Hesychius.  Its  value  is  greatly 
enhanced  by  marginal  readings  taken  from  a  text  of 
Origen’s  Hexapla,  with  initial  letters  indicating  the 
source  of  the  readings. 


Diagram  showing  the  relation  of  the  rival  Greek  Bibles  and  revisions  tothe  5eptuagint(chapvI) 


Notes  in  the  Syro-Hexaplar  version  of  Paul  of 
Telia  and  a  statement  of  Theodoret  led  Field  and 
Lagarde  to  identify  the  manuscripts  of  the  Lucian 
text.  This  Lucian  revision  is  of  great  value  in  the 


'  "  «/  ‘■^Vr  i*of<’*»j*'V*Mf',  T**’»^^^^-<'**!'' 


*  (fc.  ^  -K  <  j*4 


*  J  %  A  ^ 


-^  >  •  /  \ 


tS^'Tf  i  T  V  tf»t^  «-V  ^  ft'  -r  T  ‘‘tj'^U  a  -  ^  i, 


*u 


PI  I 


^xiTrreTJi  rroM  t  o\i  rt « o  YMTiim 

^jLU  KYVkaH  oY-vruThri'i  f'lrilfcov 


ful  l  iVi Ti  i 'm  t .1 1 0 !  -I  e  K  6  p'l  i  i  n  >  1  Yi a‘«: 


'S'f 


•3 


■I  T 


!1T  \  ’I  -  I,  ^ 


K1  1  tilXLl  Pi  t  I  (^KKf  l  U  l  »it  U  »6  II  HU  :.vV 
'rt  u  t  i-r  1 1 1  Ytri'c  A n f  1 1  I'l  i  fl  &y  tin  hy- 
v:itAofrHn  an  «Yt;ivin  i  am  K'AnVricft 
i  irwu'Hi  LAI  rri  in  i  >k  tAt 
AlXi  iKl  tt  r^uAll  MJ  ovn  rrd  hyi  rrt 
^tlt  j  1  li  mi  u  0  f  1  'u  It  i  f  8  Y  n  li  yi'o  yc  ’ 
ti  { e  i  tn  c  f  EH  1 1>  1 1 1  ?fi  i  rvcjLi  E  j  i  sVin 
^  jASiiliw'rU  t  l-Vt  H  1 1  MTO  t  C  K’yV  Alt  Jt « Y' 
Kiirrii  t«  vrj^rt  m  i  toYK’YKAii  koyim-' 
i||iiKi  ri  iiTC  eKi  eAiVo  mto  1 1 u  i 
.  r  1 1 AC- 1  Aii'ri  i  M  uiXh  JCu 

^  Hic,n  ri-o"lCfH)  i  iscil|'i  lurv 

8  yi'm'I'i  Tn  vi  n  u  i'l  i ;  tt'uce  ?rri 
1 1  H « p  n'^i  v: i '  f‘\  1 ,1  ( i  AK J 1 1 » H  va1i 

iri  It  E  i-ft-YkloVfVtOKCf  aia  1 1  ?  /f  n'l*”' 
t >\i.i  1-8 1 T'(  1  All  I  i exit  f,  e A  lA  1 1 1 J I ruY' 
At !  I  rYYi“i  mx  VI V  i  ji  li  v;ro^  ^. 

Ki  1  ii  6  nri  i  t^iit  q  i  u  vi't 

Aini  YTIAU^J  P'l  i  TU  I  t  ri  lA  hi:  • 

Ywi^vii  f  ^)Y.i  i|itc5K'n.e  YNn'p  \. 

V  -a  1  cyi-i  p  I  rori  i'  r-rm  o  y.  vrti  b  i,o  ^ 

n'«  A 1 1  Hi)  11  cfA  l  V  1 0 1 1  .iCl'Df  11  P 1  IT  H  niT 

vi-vruri  1  I  t  I  »Pii  c  0 1.  iii  t  iiciHU  i  rro  t 
c  i  iii  1  u  A 1 1 A  f' Y  { 0  MX'i  1  rrr  i  <  r'KXi »« 1 1 


5s- 

A- 

.A- 


^  ■'  S  r*  r  » I 

.'  ^  r 
'•  I'.f  -^1  •/ 

A  I  -p  t1  '*  ‘1 

'  >  # 

•)  Ml  ■•'  V  ^ 

»  /  ,  ■ 

4i-»  '  I  ^  • 

▼  Y^v 

**^T  ^  -'Hi/, 


)i i I  nn  ri^nncTTi c  t  k’yKaSpih-v 

v/^:y^^c«AA'Aiie^  *  m 


Codex  Marchaliaiuis  (Q  .  Sixth  Century 
Kzekiel  5  :  12-17 


4. 


•? 


Manuscripts  of  the  Revisions  73 

criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament;  for  Lucian 
used  Hebrew  manuscripts  at  Antioch  that  were 
different  from  those  employed  by  Origen.  He  also 
differs  from  the  Septuagint,  and  probably  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  Syriac  version. 

These  three  revisions  of  the  Septuagint,  while  not 
superseding  that  venerable  text,  added  valuable  ele¬ 
ments  to  the  matter  for  textual  biblical  criticism,  fof 
better  determining  the  original  text  of  the  Septuagint, 
and  of  estimating  with  a  good  degree  of  probability 
the  true  readings  of  some  difficult  texts  in  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  LATIN  BIBLES,  THE  VULGATE 

57.  The  official  language  of  the  Roman  empire 
was  Latin.  But  this  tongue  was  not  at  first,  nor  even 
at  last,  the  language  generally  in  use  throughout  all 
the  provinces  of  the  empire.  In  all  those  countries 
most  contiguous  to  Rome  it  gradually  became  the  lan¬ 
guage  not  simply  of  officialdom,  but  of  all  important 
public  institutions.  The  Christian  church  in  the  first 
century,  and  well  along  into  the  second,  seems  to 
have  made  Greek  its  everyday  tongue.  The  books 
of  the  New  Testament  were  all  first  written  in  Greek, 
unless  Matthew  be  an  exception ;  and  Paul’s  preach¬ 
ing  and  writing  were  done  in  the  same  tongue.  Even 
the  early  bishops  of  Rome  were  Greek.  One  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament — the 
Codex  Alexandrinus — contains  an  epistle  of  Bishop 
Clement  of  Rome,  written  in  Greek  to  the  Corinth¬ 
ians.  In  fact,  the  early  Christian  church  was  Greek 
through  and  through,  using  the  Septuagint  as  its  Old 
Testament  scriptures,  and  the  Greek  documents,  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles,  as  its  New  Testament;  that  is, 
its  Scriptures  were  all  Greek. 

58.  But  the  constantly  increasing  influence  of 
Rome  gradually  overcame  the  predominance  of  the 
Greek  tongue.  The  Christian  church,  like  all  other 

74 


75 


Early  Latin  Versions 

institutions,  finally  adopted  Latin  as  the  language  of 
its  ritual  and  services.  This  soon  led  to  the  require¬ 
ment  either  of  an  interpretation  into  the  Latin  tongue 
by  the  leader  of  the  church  services,  or  of  a  transla¬ 
tion  into  that  tongue. 

The  current  Latin  Bible  of  to-day  is  the  Vulgate, 
translated  by  Jerome  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury.  But  there  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  church 
fathers,  in  manuscripts,  and  in  some  other  sources 
that  there  were  Old  Latin  versions  current  before 
Jerome’s  day,  as  in  Germany  there  were  German 
translations  of  the  Bible  before  Luther’s  day.  Au¬ 
gustine  (353-430  A.  D.)  says  that  “those  who  have 
translated  the  Scriptures  from  Hebrew  into  Greek 
can  be  numbered,  but  the  Latin  translators  cannot, 
for  every  one  into  whose  hands  a  Greek  manuscript 
came  in  the  first  periods  of  the  Christian  faith,  and 
who  fancied  that  he  had  some  skill  in  both  languages, 
ventured  to  translate.”  It  is  now  generally  conceded 
that  at  the  latest  a  Latin  translation  of  the  entire 
Bible  was  in  circulation  at  Carthage  250  A.  D.  It 
is  entirely  probable  that  portions  of  the  Bible,  par¬ 
ticularly  the  New  Testament,  for  its  immediate  value 
to  the  Christian  church,  were  extant  in  Latin  as  early 
as  200  A.  D.  Of  course,  the  New  Testament  was 
translated  immediately  from  the  original  Greek,  but 
the  Old  Testament  of  the  Old  Latin  versions  was 
translated  from  the  Septuagint — a  translation  of  a 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

59.  From  the  fragments  of  manuscripts  and  other 


76  The  Latin  Bibles ^  the  Vulgate 

remains  of  the  Old  Latin  versions  it  is  evident  that 
there  were  different  versions  current  in  different 
parts  of  Christendom.  Then  the  question  might  well 
be  asked,  Where  was  the  Bible  first  translated  into 
Latin, — in  Rome,  North  Africa  or  Syria?  For  these 
were  all  important  centers  of  Christianity.  The  late 
Dr.  Hort  and  a  company  of  modern  scholars,  have 
independently  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Old 
Latin  version  had  its  origin  in  Syria  or  Asia  Minor, 
probably  at  Antioch,  that  powerful  literary  and  re¬ 
ligious  center  in  the  early  Christian  centuries.  Its 
faithfulness  in  some  places  to  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
its  resemblances  to  Lucian’s  readings,  and  the  certain 
knowledge  of  its  translator  of  the  administrative  ar¬ 
rangements  of  Palestine  in  this  period,  are  some  of 
the  many  evidences  for  Dr.  Hort’s  position.  This 
Old  Latin  version  made  in  Syria  was  carried  to  Rome, 
to  the  countries  of  Europe,  and  to  North  Africa,  iri 
the  region  of  Carthage.  Cyprian  (about  (200-258 
A.  D.)  quotes  freely  from  it,  and  apparently  always 
from  the  same  text.  Tertullian,  Cyprian’s  teacher, 
likewise  quotes  Scripture  in  his  writings,  but  in  a  man¬ 
ner  that  strips  his  quotations  of  value  in  seeking  the 
true  readings  of  a  text.  He  apparently  paraphrases, 
quotes  from  memory,  and  so  uses  the  matter  as  to 
lead  one  to  suspect  that  he  discounted  the  authorita¬ 
tive  value  of  the  text  he  quoted. 

60.  The  Old  Latin  material  such  as  manuscripts 
of  which  there  is  not  a  complete  one  of  the  whole 
Bible,  quotations  from  the  fathers,  and  other  frag- 


77 


Classification  of  Texts 

ments,  are  classified  by  Dr.  Hort  under  three  groups. 
The  first  is  the  “  African/’  whose  manuscripts  and 
texts  agree  with  the  quotations  of  Cyprian.  The 
second  group  is  the  “  European,”  a  text  used  in 
Western  Europe  and  North  Italy,  and  differing  in 
many  respects  from  the  African.  The  third  group 
was  named  “  Italian,”  after  a  reference  in  Augustine 
(de  Doct.  Christ.,  vol.  ii.  15)  to  a  Latin  translation 
which  he  called  “  Itala.”  This  is  smoother  and  more 
polished  than  the  European,  and  is  often  supposed 
to  be  a  revision  of  that  text. 

The  three  groups  are  constituted  of  texts  that  were 
translations  of  the  Greek  Bible,  made  at  different 
times  between  200  and  400  A.  D.  Their  original  was 
probably  the  Septuagint  in  different  manuscripts  be¬ 
fore  the  preparation  of  the  editions  of  Origen  or  the 
later  revisionists  already  described.  There  are  found 
to-day  in  various  libraries  of  Europe  about  thirty  man¬ 
uscripts,  and  long  authoritative  quotations  from  the 
Old  Latin  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
several  complete  texts  of  the  apocryphal  books.  The 
manuscripts  date  as  far  back  as  the  fifth  century,  at 
the  very  beginning  of  which  Jerome  laid  down  his 
pen. 

We  have  to-day  in  complete  form  the  Old  Latin 
texts  of  Esdras,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Baruch,  the  Maccabees,  the  Rest  of  Esther  and  the 
Additions  to  Daniel.  All  these  books,  unrevised  by 
Jerome,  are  retained  to-day  in  their  Old  Latin  form 
in  the  Vulgate. 


78  The  Latin  Bibles ^  the  Vulgate 

61.  The  existence  of  several  Latin  versions,  differ¬ 
ing  greatly  in  their  texts,  occasioned  either  by  care¬ 
less  copying  or  translating,  or  both,  soon  aroused 
complaints  and  distrust  in  the  authoritative  value  of 
the  manuscripts.  Jerome,  a  most  accomplished 
scholar,  who  was  born  at  Stridon,  on  the  borders  of 
Dalmatia  and  Pannonia  about  340-342,  came  “  to  the 
kingdom  for  such  a  time  as  this.”  His  parents  were 
wealthy  and  he  had  the  best  school  advantages  of 
his  day.  His  early  training,  his  four  years  of  travel 
in  the  East,  his  five  years  (374-379)  spent  in  the 
desert  of  Chalcis  in  self-discipline,  and  a  thorough 
study  of  the  Hebrew  language  under  a  rabbi  who 
had  been  converted  to  Christianity,  prepared  him 
for  one  of  the  great  tasks  of  the  ages.  In  this  period, 
through  correspondence  and  explanation  of  Scripture 
terms,  he  formed  a  close  friendship  with  Pope 
Damasus.  In  379  he  moved  to  Antioch,  where  he  was 
ordained  presbyter.  Later,  at  Constantinople,  he 
became  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  expositions  of 
Gregory  Nazianzen.  In  382  he  went  to  Rome,  where 
he  spent  more  than  two  years  in  close  association  witif 
Pope  Damasus. 

62.  At  the  request  of  the  Pope,  who  had  dis¬ 
played  large  interest  in  the  Scriptures,  Jerome  under¬ 
took  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin  version  on  the  basis 
of  the  Greek  text.  He  began  by  revising  the  Gos¬ 
pels  which  appeared  in  383.  This  was  followed  very 
soon  by  the  Acts  and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  seems  to  have  confined  his  changes  to  as  few  pas- 


Ixr-LICIT 


f  R  C  R  \X 

I  fsi  rt^T'r'^cv 

h  u  r 

f-Jomtnclch 

Utf'-tllcihriplfK  Cxmxtc^, 
Xcamcnf'^m  tVr<Aeclv*t?f'* 
A/n  .vtt>  -  f'-J.xri <1  *fci nc  rt  i^ri- 
c^n’'tff~ili.\c-''  Cxfxuv 
>  o  ff^i'fta  A  u  ficp  tcniiiixoutti 

'rintxcjuoi'j:  tu-Z'xhour'it  Ct:cjinn<^;^W(: 
Xfifij^C  Xcf^xtyiilix  ^ruslr.xs^trmf'  i.'r'xtirj:  nij'ilLe^ 

t’Tf^Aeiywri'i>nuiuiu  perAxmof .  ou'lnf 
fuO'  C"^ mttotnttfliocxhxfxt  ■n'cr0t'or''ii'ilisi'isx comc~ 

xh'^xfryriSChihtrtr^ti.-ucff'  C  •■‘<71  i/utrhc/tf  n'xj'iftffhjc: 

It 

At tf 'ccyf "I intm  frxtcdyM  xAiX-fioh  izku  fiCAly^sX'  11101" 


("ani1'tr<$-mfpi  diLwcitlo  offtr'dyxt  fu‘»locA<»^f.vp/'</vnt 
iof  'OiCtbxTi’ntm .  f^tfh^'rt'iyLXAxuernnt  ftlitn’ict 
CzhcncAi-Ket^nzAyio  inc0rAibt  imf  ficfxciAyxt  jtjl> 
-^-Cun.&fdidAr . . . . ;., . .  . 


tv 


Jerome’s  Version,  Latin.  About  A  I),  840. 
Job  I  ;  I -8a 


yerome  s  Revision  Work  79 

sages  as  consistent  with  faithfulness  to  the  original 
text. 

Jerome’s  first  work  on  the  Old  Testament  was  a 
revision  of  the  Old  Latin  Psalter,  probably  of  the 

Italian  ”  version.  He  did  his  work  on  the  basis 
of  the  Septuagint  and  made  only  such  changes  as  the 
sense  required.  This  very  mild  revision  (of  384) 
was  called  “  the  Roman  Psalter,”  in  distinction  from 
the  Old  Latin  Psalter.  By  a  decree  of  Pope  Damasus, 
this  became  the  official  version  of  the  Psalter  in  the 
churches  of  Rome  and  Italy  until  Pius  V  (1566-1572). 
It  is  still  the  official  Psalter  in  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome, 
and  at  Milan,  and  partially  in  the  Roman  Missal,  and 
in  one  place  in  the  Breviary  in  the  Invitatory  psalm 

94  (95)” 

About  the  end  of  384  A.  D.  Pope  Damasus  died, 
and  in  385  Jerome  left  Rome  for  Palestine.  After 
a  prolonged  study  of  its  topography  and  cities,  and 
a  tour  of  Egypt,  he,  with  his  associates,  settled  in 
Bethlehem.  Here  in  389  he  founded  two  monasteries 
over  one  of  which  he  presided  for  at  least  fifteen 
years.  Over  the  other,  founded  for  nuns,  Paula,  the 
devout  widow,  was  governess. 

Somewhere  during  these  years,  probably  about  387 
A.  D.,  in  answer  to  requests,  Jerome  again  revised  the 
Psalter.  In  this  work  he  used,  in  addition  to  the 
Septuagint,  the  Greek  text  of  Origen’s  Hexapla,  to¬ 
gether  with  some  of  his  critical  symbols.  This  re¬ 
vision  became  known  later  as  “  the  Gallican  Psalter,” 
for  it  was  first  adopted  in  Gaul.  It  was  finally  adopted 


8o 


The  Latin  Bibles^  the  Vulgate 

and  decreed  to  be  the  official  version  of  the 
Psalter  in  the  Latin  Church,  where  it  remains  to-day 
as  the  version  of  the  Psalms  embodied  in  the  Vulgate. 
Jerome  also  translated  or  revised  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  on  the  basis  of  the  Septuagint,  but 
only  the  Psalter  and  Job  of  this  revision  have  been 
preserved  to  this  day. 

63.  More  and  more  Jerome  came  to  see  that  the 
work  that  he  had  been  doing  could  be  a  better  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  original  Hebrew  if  it  were  not  a 
revision,  but  a  new  translation.  In  his  controversies 
with  Jews,  he  saw  the  disadvantage  of  appealing  to 
the  Septuagint,  for  they  denied  that  it  truly  repre¬ 
sented  the  original  Hebrew.  Jerome’s  friends,  too, 
were  urgent  that  he  undertake  a  new  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew.  In  answer  to 
these  requests,  as  he  says  in  his  prefaces,  he  began 
little  by  little  to  translate  the  separate  books,  and  to 
send  copies  of  them  to  his  friends.  Thus  the  great 
biblical  scholar  was  led  gradually  and  almost  casually 
into  doing  by  piecemeal  what  later  became  his  great 
life-work. 

His  first  translation  (390  A.  D.)  dealt  with  the 
easier  historical  narrative  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  These  books 
were  prefaced  by  the  “  helmeted  prologue  ”  (prologus 
galeatus),  which  is  practically  an  introduction  to  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  and  one  armed  to  meet  his 
antagonists  on  the  issue  of  a  new  translation. 

The  next  task  that  he  set  before  himself  was  a  new 


yerome  s  Personality 


8i 


translation  of  the  Psalter,  he  having  already  twice 
revised  it.  The  prophets  and  Job  followed  in  order; 
then  Ezra  and  Chronicles — all  the  translations  thus 
far  falling  within  the  years  390-396  A.  D.  For  two 
years  he  was  laid  aside  by  severe  illness.  He  was 
able  to  take  up  his  task  again  in  398  and  translate 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Song  of  Songs.  The  Pen¬ 
tateuch  followed  in  order,  and  (in  404)  Joshua, 
Judges,  Ruth  and  Esther.  The  death  of  Paula,  head 
over  the  convent,  occurred  in  404  A.  D. ;  soon  there¬ 
after  appeared  the  apocryphal  parts  of  Daniel  and 
Esther.  Later  followed  the  books  of  Tobit  and 
Judith,  translated  from  the  Aramaic.  These  com¬ 
pleted  Jerome’s  translation  of  the  Old  Testament 
from  the  Hebrew  text.  He  neither  revised  nor  trans¬ 
lated  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  the  Macca¬ 
bees,  and  Baruch. 

64.  Jerome’s  personality  as  reflected  in  the  pref¬ 
aces  to  his  translations  is  extremely  interesting.  His 
profound  scholarship  did  not  deaden  his  sensitiveness 
to  criticism  and  opposition.  For  fourteen  years  (390- 
404)  he  labored  almost  incessantly  to  produce  a  faith¬ 
ful  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  only  to  meet  the  sharp¬ 
est,  keenest  antagonism  of  the  churchmen  all  about 
him.  These  prefaces  are  defenses  of  his  positions, 
and  fairly  ring  with  his  denunciations  of  his  ignorant, 
superstitious  critics.  He  wielded  a  sharp  pen,  pos¬ 
sessed  a  hot  temper,  and  did  not  fail  to  combine  them 
into  cutting  and  caustic  retorts  and  criticisms.  He 
gives  us,  besides,  in  these  prefaces,  an  idea  of  how 


82 


The  Latin  Bibles^  the  Vulgate 

he  worked,  what  difficulties  he  encountered,  and  how 
he  finally  succeeded  in  a  task  that  gave  to  the  church 
such  a  careful  translation  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

65.  After  the  final  work  of  translation  was  com¬ 
pleted,  Jerome  had  to  endure  a  storm  of  criticism  and 
invective.  His  own  tempestuous  replies  to  his  critics 
only  added  strength  to  the  irritation.  The  Septua- 
gint’s  authority  and  accuracy  being  laid  aside  by 
Jerome’s  translation,  the  friends  and  devotees  of  the 
former  version  fiercely  assailed  him.  Jerome  as¬ 
serted  his  reverence  for  the  Septuagint,  but  at  the 
same  time  said  that  his  effort  was  only  to  render 
clearly  the  Hebrew  passages  that  were  obscure  in 
the  Septuagint  and  the  Old  Latin.  The  conservatives 
at  that  day,  as  in  this,  clung  to  the  older  versions  be¬ 
cause  long  use  and  familiarity  had  cast  a  halo  of  sanc¬ 
tity  about  them.  But  the  wisest  of  the  churchmen 
soon  began  to  recognize  the  superiority  of  Jerome’s 
work.  As  soon  as  the  leaders  expressed  a  prefer¬ 
ence  for  the  best  translation,  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
church  fell  into  line.  St.  Augustine,  who  had  ex¬ 
pressed  fear  of  the  consequences  of  such  work,  now 
wisely  set  to  praising  it.  But  poor  old  Jerome  saw 
only  contention  and  strife  to  the  end  of  his  life  (in 
420)  at  Bethlehem.  He  had  no  satisfaction  of  seeing 
his  all-important  service  to  the  cause  of  biblical  learn¬ 
ing  publicly  recognized  for  anything  like  its  true 
worth.  But  its  superior  merit  was  enough  to  grant 
it  a  fair  hearing,  and  win  for  it  the  place  that  it  was 
destined  soon  to  hold  in  the  progress  of  Christianity. 


yero7ne  s  Translation  Adopted  83 

66.  Jerome  died  almost  broken-hearted  because  of 
the  denunciations  of  his  fellow  churchmen  for  his  new 
translation  of  the  Bible.  But  that  century,  the  fifth, 
did  not  pass  by  without  public  recognition  on  the 
part  of  church  leaders  of  his  real  service  to  biblical 
learning.  Pope  Gregory’s  commentary  on  Job 
(about  580  A.  D.)  recognized  Jerome’s  translation  as 
on  a  par  with  the  Old  Latin.  In  the  next  two  cen¬ 
turies  the  church  fathers  quoted  both  the  Old  Latin 
and  Jerome’s  versions,  the  latter  gradually  gaining 
favor  over  the  former.  The  use  of  the  two  versions 
side  by  side  led  to  the  correction  of  one  by  the  other, 
and  finally  to  the  mixing  of  the  texts.  In  the  sixth 
century,  even,  this  corruption  had  gone  so  far  that 
Cassiodorus  took  steps  to  correct  the  current  ver¬ 
sions  by  the  old  and  best  manuscripts.  The  work  of 
Alcuin,  under  commission  from  Charlemagne  and  of 
Theodtilf  of  Orleans,  will  be  noted  in  §132. 

Further  consideration  of  the  Vulgate’s  history  will 
be  found  under  Chapter  XV.  A  few  words  con¬ 
cerning  the  earliest  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate  manu¬ 
scripts  will  conclude  our  present  discussion  of  this 
theme. 

67.  There  are  thousands  of  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate 
manuscripts  in  the  public  and  private  libraries  of  Eu¬ 
rope.  Professor  Samuel  Berger,  of  Paris,  examined 
more  than  800  in  the  libraries  of  Paris  alone.  It  is 
thought  that  the  total  number  will  not  be  loss  than 
8,000.  The  most  of  them  are  late  thirteenth  or  four¬ 
teenth  century  documents  that  possess  slight  value. 


84  The  Latin  Bibles^  the  Vulgate 

Mention  can  be  made  here  of  only  a  few  of  the  oldest 
and  most  valuable  of  these  documents  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament :  (i)  One  of  the  oldest  of  the  Spanish  texts  is 
the  Ashburnham  Pentateuch,”  now  in  the  National 
Library  at  Paris  (Nouv.  acq.  Lat.  2334),  a  beautiful 
Vulgate  document  with  pictorial  illustrations,  from 
the  seventh  or  eight  century.  (2)  Codex  Com- 
plutensis,  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Madrid, 
Spain,  belonging  to  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  an 
entire  Vulgate  Bible  text,  but  Ruth,  Esther,  Tobit, 
Judith,  and  i  and  2  Maccabees  are  from  an  Old  Latin 
version.  (3)  Codex  Amiatinus  of  the  whole  Bible  at 
Florence,  dating  from  the  beginning  of  the  eighth 
century.  It  was  copied  in  England,  either  at  Wear- 
mouth  or  Jarrow,  and  carried  by  Abbot  Ceolfrid  in 
715  A.  D.  as  a  present  to  the  Pope.  The  large  list 
of  known  manuscripts,  by  far  the  greater  number 
being  of  the  Gospels,  is  arranged  in  ten  classes:  (i) 
Early  Italian  texts;  (2)  early  Spanish  texts;  (3) 
Italian  texts  transcribed  in  Britain ;  (4)  Continental 
manuscripts  written  by  Irish  or  Saxon  scribes,  show¬ 
ing  a  mixture  of  two  types  of  text;  (5)  texts  cur¬ 
rent  in  Languedoc;  (6)  other  French  texts;  (7) 
Swiss  manuscripts;  (8)  Alcuinian  Revision;  (9) 
Theodulfian  Revision;  and  (10)  medieval  texts. 

A  discussion  of  the  New  Testament  texts  of  the 
Old  Latin  and  Vulgate,  their  confusion  during  the 
middle  ages,  and  some  attempts  to  reconstruct  a  pure 
text,  and  the  Vulgate  since  the  Council  of  Trent  will 
be  found  in  Chapter  XV. 


ss'^y- 


■.,y: 


^tuSe9T»r>AS  ajt»H  I . juncp- 


^i/  ^^ive)yL»rtv^ 

ii'-iy  %1--  _ _ _ 


WS'/ 


j4f|2ATI0H6S<aj:^<”«MASa<S>omof 

a»q»l^t>Hurt>SuATi«m  pecenfi 
TIS  UHr|>6UHOt»>lHAP1H  9«l^  ' 

^l^iHriAHHl^®TSwpiXAO‘^Her 
¥  <|uiA&&eUA|))iOceD  erren  r;.vl^«»» 
Xia'2)dL'  c>ejril«siu2>4'perx9eH6«A 
tl  OH  es  5i«j\  CT|AOCmLi  AS  ’  ACt>  O  .tr  af 
'co^HATTOHUmsuAIiUonpejaHom; 

'AUJ  ceSiaiA>AMHO 
)ai^Up|lAOcHH6S^UipOTen4.HTa3> 
j&tpUApnocefteKe-Recc'Nsensuiar* 

.  lyC-^nroijliAsosceHiJ •<^ef 7ti»5 

pei^HeRJtXlOH  orpnul, 

» .  %\C&  ttOi>  o  Sc  o  i'  H  ^x  1  o  H  u  <  w«?  I  u\ 

•  pCRH  OOl  I SI  H  c;n  ^ "-x  »ia«M 
oAhtj4  o  ets  up  Tz-v  ooi>h«P 

3U»  p  (neTlA|4TAi>JlM=llAp  TlO  Ct55rtxt^ 

eCfiH*»X1««HxT^I7Mir»|LlA«|UA 

¥iiR^9»^c^)epliisf;^luH  pt^u 
.  ‘g6^#et2.Wi3H«Wmp\atll4.\i?AcI>P 
t  J; ,  mbiXsto  csj^A^iON  U  cps  UttRvi  a\  tve- 

y,'  '*  ■'«* 

»-<^>4$X|r>cyjjjrip^womihas»Hi;ML:* 

costoooAiaHo  ersuppA! 


Cei^enc  Lvn  u'>7i4A  c^uAb liin * 
jDeif iliisios^pli  pi4orzu<ucpKiai> 
pO»i^>16K.UJOHeS.ACp7fT»  •, 
l4AS-et4&0iT>oSC09WAriONU«> 
suoRutnjieceHSiTi9uK*peR  | 
H  on>7HA  f  s  j  H^uion  utx>  AUicc" 

9in>04HW0-eT£UpTlA0mWES 

i^oipoieRAHXAOBeUapnocB'  1 
oent'pUoDliA^uiMCjewTj'  ^ 
non)lOpljORUfr»rt'»aHASS«pCTi  i 

-S-ri  (MJ  cm  ■  t=TT.A  cYk  f  2 1AQ  t 


,  >  A 

i.  tT*  '‘- 


CfC-HCjiATlOHCS  'jrfAaoiliAS 
AC^ocnoPfcHOOtJHAHOHuaiSnA.  ♦ 


nua>>T2CH:eHi^Ji  IS  UNip  eiiHo  1 
rt>|W.lSlHC5UU>KUiy»AUlCC-Sinr>o  'I 
AMMOeT5UpR.XOmhl0St^Uipo 

reiiA  HicXDo  c-lLip  Rocu  D  cue-; 
WOimiUAPucivii' 
ibkv^un^iM'peiz^t/Meruwia  ^ 
f^^tiJcrfAaiiU<vs>A<^>ua>ortC05i 
j4aiiOHUu>su  Aftutxi  fjiecoHf'pi^ 
SukTHO  <'v»iMlR>*,SlHt‘’,uLoinM^^ 
Ao»cosuT>eANKo  eiS7uj»HA  ;> 
QOT>H<;S‘|uipl>TCmMl'AJ>Ort^  - 
L\p7i<?CC»>SRC-.vmV' ‘77  •l|^V'‘j*f‘7  > 
d I ' t)  epiUlS  J>ai*  J 
iiAtAn4»sa^fenpuwil|A^^ 

X>a*x>osco  cp4  ATit?H 

lt^eHSfr<s^wnrMu*i>|fJJO^  J 


-  i^..  . 


Vulgate  Manuscript  I'ornierly  in  Marl  of  Ashbnrnliain’s  Library, 
Seventb  (Jentiiry.  IM  umbers  i  ;  22b-38a 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  SYRIAC  BIBLES 

68.  The  Syrians  were  the  population  of  Syria, 
the  country  northeast  of  Palestine,  and  northwestern 
Mesopotamia.  Their  language  was  the  Syriac,  a 
Semitic  tongue  very  closely  allied  with  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Old  Testament.  So  far  as  known,  there  was 
no  call  for  the  Old  Testament  in  the  tongue  of  these 
peoples  until  after  the  introduction  into  their  country 
of  Christianity.  The  establishment  of  Christian 
churches  within  the  bounds  of  Syria  very  soon  must 
have  been  followed  by  a  demand  on  the  part  of  the 
communities  in  which  these  churches  were  located, 
for  the  sacred  books  of  Christianity  in  their  own 
tongue.  The  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  original 
was  written  in  Hebrew  would  greatly  facilitate  its 
translation  into  Syriac,  a  sister  Semitic  tongue.  Sim¬ 
ilar  idioms  could  thus  be  readily  translated,  even  by 
one  who  was  not  well  versed  in  other  languages. 

69.  The  existence  to-day  of  one  complete  Syriac 
Bible,  and  of  several  versions  of  the  Syriac  New 
Testament,  leads  us  to  incpiire  as  to  their  origin.  The 
Syriac  Old  Testament  will  claim  our  attention  here, 
while  the  New  Testament  versions  will  be  reserved 
for  Chapter  XVH.  The  one  complete  Syriac  Old 
Testament  had  an  obscure  beginning.  Some  scholars 

85 


86 


The  Syriac  Bibles 


of  prominence  claim  that  it  had  a  Jewish  origin,  be¬ 
cause  of  its  faithfulness  to  the  Hebrew,  and  the  em¬ 
bodiment  in  the  text  of  thoughts  characteristically 
Jewish.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  thought  that  it  must 
have  had  a  Christian  origin  because  of  its  faithful 
rendering  of  Messianic  passages,  that  better  agree 
with  Christian  than  with  Jewish  ideas.  In  Leviti¬ 
cus  II  and  Deuteronomy  14,  there  is  a  carelessness 
in  translation,  or  ignorance  of  the  details  of  ritual¬ 
istic  observance,  that  would  oppose  any  thought  of 
a  Jewish  origin.  The  absence  of  the  apocryphal 
books  from  the  earliest  copies  bespeak  Jewish  origin. 
The  absence  of  Chronicles  points  to  a  current  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  canonical  status  of  that  book.  The 
two  groups  of  reasons  given  above  regarding  trans¬ 
lators  could  be  admirably  harmonized  on  the  suppo¬ 
sition  that  it  was  the  work  of  Jews  who  had  been 
converted  to  Christianity.  It  is  well  known  that  this 
country  was  a  favorite  land  for  the  abode  of  many 
Jews  in  the  first  Christian  centuries,  and  that  they, 
as  at  all  times,  were  energetic  promoters  of  learning. 

70.  If  the  Syriac  Old  Testament  is  of  Christian 
origin,  we  must  look  for  it  at  about  150  A.  D.  In 
the  fourth  century  it  was  not  simply  extant,  but  was 
the  basis  of  an  elaborate  commentary  by  Ephraem 
Syrus  (who  died  in  373).  He  mentions  the  Syriac 
Old  Testament  as  widely  circulated  in  the  churches 
of  Syria  in  his  time.  It  had  been  translated  at  so 
distant  a  day  that  some  of  the  words  had  already  be¬ 
come  obscure  to  him,  and  required  extensive  com- 


Traces  of  Syriac  Old  Testament  87 

ments.  Aphraates,  a  churchman  at  Mosul,  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  quotes  passages  out  of 
all  the  canonical  books  of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament, 
with  the  exception  of  Song  of  Songs ;  though  he  gives 
none  from  the  Apocrypha.  Then  still  farther  back, 
just  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  Melito  of 
Sardis  cites  “  the  Syrian  ”  in  discussing  the  sacred 
books.  It  is  not  certain,  however,  that  he  refers  to 
the  Syriac  Bible.  Jacob  of  Edessa  and  Ephraem 
affirm,  however,  that  the  early  Syriac  Bible  was  the 
result  of  the  labors  of  several  translators.  After  some 
centuries  a  part  of  the  Syrians  threw  aside  their  old 
Syriac  Bible,  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  for  one 
of  the  several  translated  from  the  beloved  old  Sep- 
tuagint.  Jacob  of  Edessa  (about  704  A.  D.)  at¬ 
tempted  to  harmonize  the  old  Syriac,  or  Peshitta 
(the  “simple,”  “literal”),  and  the  Septuagint  ver¬ 
sions.  Another  translation  was  that  made  by  Poly¬ 
carp  (in  508)  at  the  instance  of  Bishop  Philoxenus. 
Of  more  importance  was  the  Syriac  translation  from 
the  Hexaplar  text  of  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus.  This 
was  executed  by  Bishop  Paul  of  Telia  in  Mesopo¬ 
tamia,  at  Alexandria,  617-618  A.  D.  It  contains  not 
simply  the  critical  symbols  of  Origen,  but  fragments 
of  other  Greek  translations  as  marginal  notes.  Other 
comparatively  unimportant  Syriac  editions  and  revis¬ 
ions  were  doubtless  current  during  succeeding  cen¬ 
turies,  as  seen  among  the  various  religious  sects  and 
orders  of  Syria. 

71.  The  contents  of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament 


88 


The  Syriac  Bibles 

cover  about  the  same  ground  as  the  Hebrew  or  Mas- 
soretic  text.  Its  number  of  books  is  twenty-two,  and 
the  arrangement  of  these  books  varies  considerably 
in  different  manuscripts.  The  version  current  among 
the  Nestorians  lacked  Chronicles,  as  did  that  among 
the  Jacobites  at  Edessa.  This  book  is  found,  how¬ 
ever,  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  sixth  century,  though 
with  a  division  in  most  of  them  at  2  Chronicles  6:  i. 
Esther  is  not  found  in  the  Nestorian  version,  nor  is 
Ezra-Nehemiah  in  that  of  the  Jacobites.  In  the  latter 
version  Esther,  Judith,  Ruth  and  Susanna  form  “  the 
Book  of  the  Women.’’ 

The  arrangement  of  the  books  has  several  points 
in  common  with  the  Septuagint.  Indeed,  the  resem¬ 
blance  is  often  so  much  nearer  that  of  the  Septuagint 
than  of  the  Hebrew  that  one  is  led  to  suspect  that 
the  Septuagint  was  either  freely  used  in  making  up 
the  original  order,  or  the  Syriac  at  a  later  time  was 
made  to  conform  to  that  order.  There  is  very  slight 
probability  that  such  revision  was  made  after  the 
time  of  Aphraates,  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
In  addition  to  the  regular  books  of  the  Septuagint 
and  Hebrew,  complete  Syriac  manuscripts,  like  Codex 
Ambrosianus,  contain  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch, 
4  Esdras  and  4  and  5  Maccabees. 

72.  The  extant  manuscripts  of  this  version  are  not 
numerous.  One  of  the  finest  collections  is  found  in 
the  British  Museum,  secured  mainly  in  1842  from  the 
monastery  of  St.  Mary  Deipara,  which  is  situated  in 
the  Nitrian  desert  in  Egypt.  In  this  collection  is 


89 


Manuscripts  of  Syriac  Bible 

found  one  manuscript  which  bears  the  oldest  date  of 
any  known  manuscript  of  the  Bible.  This  date  is 
464.  It  carries  in  it  Genesis,  Exodus,  Numbers  and 
Deuteronomy.  This  very  text  has  been  copiously 
copied  by  Ephraem  and  Aphraates  in  the  fourth 
century.  Another  notable  manuscript  is  the  Codex 
Ambrosianus  at  Milan,  out  of  the  sixth  or  seventh 
century.  The  preface  to  the  Psalter  in  this  manuscript 
says  the  Psalms  were  translated  from  the  Palestinian 
language  into  Hebrew,  from  Hebrew  into  Greek,  from 
Greek  into  Syriac.  In  Codex  Rich  (No.  7154  Brit. 
Mus.)  this  claim  covers  the  whole  Syriac  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  while  it  states  that  the  (Syriac)  Psalter  was 
translated  from  the  Palestinian  language  into  He¬ 
brew,  according  to  the  translation  of  Symmachus,  the 
Samaritan.  One  of  the  notable  things  in  the  Syriac 
Psalter  is  the  freedom  with  which  the  superscriptions 
are  omitted  or  changed — due,  it  is  thought,  to  the 
influence  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  a  very  original 
and  aggressive  biblical  scholar  of  Asia  Minor  in  the 
early  Christian  centuries.  Besides  the  biblical,  there 
are  extant  some  valuable  apocryphal  and  pseudepi- 
graphical  manuscripts  in  the  Syrian  tongue. 

73.  The  critical  value  of  the  Peshitta  is  not  small, 
nor  is  it  equal  in  every  book,  since  they  were  mani¬ 
festly  the  work  of  different  translators.  It  does  not 
reach  the  high  standard  of  excellence  of  the  Septua- 
gint  in  its  best  parts,  nor  does  it  fall  to  the  depths  of 
some  of  the  poorest  parts  of  that  version.  Its  read¬ 
ings  almost  always  give  good  sense,  which,  if  not 


90  The  Syriac  Bibles 

found  in  the  original,  have  been  touched  up  from 
tradition  or  some  other  source.  The  natural  inter¬ 
change  between  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  idioms  has 
likewise  minimized  its  critical  value.  The  freedorri 
used  by  translators  in  the  changing  of  suffixes  and 
paradigm  forms  rather  violates  a  modern  critic’s 
ideas  of  exactness.  The  dependence  of  the  Peshitta 
on  the  Septuagint  is  often  a  difficulty  in  textual 
study.  If  both  of  them  are  against  the  Hebrew,  it 
may  be  that  the  Syriac  is  merely  a  transcript  of  the 
Septuagint,  hence  greatly  lowering  the  weight  of  au¬ 
thority  against  that  original  text. 

The  Syriac  Pentateuch,  like  that  of  the  Septuagint, 
is  a  fair  translation  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Certain 
books,  as  Genesis,  Isaiah,  the  Minor  Prophets,  and 
the  Psalter  bear  marks  of  the  influence  of  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint.  Ruth  is  a  paraphrase.  Job  quite  literal,  while 
Chronicles  is  very  like  a  Targum.  Almost  all  the 
separate  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  care¬ 
fully  studied,  and  their  critical  value  estimated  in 
monographs  published  by  various  Syriac  scholars  of 
modern  times. 

74.  There  are  no  wholly  reliable  printed  editions 
of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament.  The  two  chief  edi¬ 
tions  or  recensions  are  the  Nestorian  and  the  West- 
Syrian,  represented  respectively  by  the  Urmia  Bible 
of  the  American  missionaries  of  1852,  and  the  text  of 
the  Paris  Polyglot  edited  by  Gabriel  Sionita.  This 
last  recension,  after  the  collation  of  additional  manu¬ 
scripts,  appeared  in  the  London  Polyglot,  and  later, 


Y3CV^  rClnivja 
^-^03an  vr^jJv 

r-r"^>V  ‘  v^^-\cu 

r<ChX'\<\x<^ 

'S^v’^^v 

^'^ObrJrv 

<vni<i<Tj<\x<:\oI^ . 

JaqTV  X<!bri 

r<rO<73 
A:i>3kVvT<^ 


_  .03-V=v>a'y3iiw- 
r‘^^^^a3>*\<^yaL»Sacv 

C\  r'^CJbLKpi  ^7^ 


Syriac  Peshitta  Text 
Deut.  19  :  2-5 


Printed  Editions 


91 


with  few  corrections,  in  Lee’s  text,  issued  by  the 
British  Bible  Society  in  1823.  The  Urmia  edition  is 
in  reality  a  reproduction  of  Lee  in  Nestorian  charac¬ 
ters,  with  Nestorian  vowels  and  better  spellings.  The 
three-volume  Syriac  Bible  published  (1887-92)  by 
the  Dominicans  of  Mosul  is  the  latest  edition  of  that 
work.  Lagarde  issued  (in  1861)  a  Syriac  text  of 
the  Apocrypha.  Here  is  a  large  field  for  a  few  de¬ 
voted  scholars  to  investigate  and  issue  a  reliable  text 
of  the  Syriac  Old  Testament.  There  is  an  announce¬ 
ment  from  Berlin  (1905)  that  a  new  Syriac  text  of 
the  Bible  is  now  in  the  course  of  preparation  by  Beer 
and  Brockelmann. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  TARGUMS - JEWISH  PARAPHRASES 

75.  The  peoples  of  Syria  in  pre-Christian  times 
spoke  a  language  closely  related  to  the  Hebrew.  It 
has  been  named  Aramaic,  since  its  users  were  called 
Aramaeans  in  the  Old  Testament.  When  a  part  of 
the  children  of  Israel  returned  from  the  Babylonian 
exile  they  came  into  a  land  where  Aramaic  had  made 
headway  as  the  language  of  the  people.  This  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that  some  portions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
written  after  the  exile,  are  in  the  Aramaic  tongue 
(see  §16).  It  seems  that  either  the  Hebrew  had  de¬ 
generated,  or  that  the  Aramaic  language  had  largely 
become  the  language  of  the  common  people.  An  evi¬ 
dence  of  this  fact  is  seen  in  the  public  reading  of  the 
law  by  Ezra,  in  Nehemiah  8:  1-8,  where  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  that  interpreters  follow  him,  and  so  put  the 
words  that  he  read  into  the  language  of  the  people 
as  to  make  its  meaning  clear  to  them.  This  require¬ 
ment  for  a  people  who  were  fast  forgetting  their 
Hebrew  soon  grew  into  the  necessity  for  a  regular 
“  paraphrase,”  that  is  “  Targum  ”  of  the  books  of  the 
Jewish  scriptures. 

76.  It  is  not  known  how  early  these  paraphrases 
were  written  down.  There  are  traditions  that  push 
them  back  into  pre-Christian  times.  They  are 

92 


Writte7i  Targicms 


93 


thought  to  be  the  resultant  accumulation  of  long 
years  of  oral  interpretations  that  began  in  Ezra’s 
day.  Their  present  form  was  given  them  at  some 
later  date.  It  is  noticeable  that  some  of  the  quota¬ 
tions  in  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  27:  46,  with 
Psa.  22:  i)  accord  with  the  readings  of  the  Tar- 
gums,  particularly  among  the  spoken  words  of  Jesus. 
These  indicate  that  Aramaic  was  a  common  language 
among  the  peoples  of  Palestine  in  the  first  century, 
and  also  that  it  was  freely  used  in  connection  with 
the  Scriptures.  Rules  were  given  that  one  verse  was 
to  be  read  in  the  Hebrew,  and  then  its  Aramaic  trans¬ 
lation  was  to  follow.  This  required  rule  seems  soon 
to  have  produced  a  written  Targum  that  was  used  on 
every  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures.  These  Tar- 
gums  were  first  extemporaneous  translations,  then 
fixed  written  interpretations,  for  use  in  the  syna¬ 
gogues  and  all  public  services  where  the  Hebrew 
original  was  in  use. 

77.  The  first  mention  of  a  written  Targum  is 
found  in  a  report  (Bab.  Shab.  115:  i)  that  a  Targum 
of  Job  was  confiscated  in  the  first  century  A.  D.  Au¬ 
thorities,  however,  would  not  recognize  the  use  of 
them  as  Scriptures,  because  they  were  not  a  transla¬ 
tion,  but  a  paraphrase  of  their  sacred  books.  It  is 
thought  that  Job  could  not  have  been  the  first  of  all 
the  important  Old  Testament  books  to  appear  in  this 
form,  and  hence  that  there  must  have  been  para¬ 
phrases  of  other  books  long  before  the  first  century. 
But  all  extant  Targums  are  much  later,  perhaps  none 


94  Tar  gums — Jewish  Paraphrases 

dating  back  of  the  fifth  or  fourth  century  A.  D.  It 
is  certain,  however,  that  the  Targums  we  possess  are 
based  on  material  that  stretches  far  back  into  the 
centuries.  But  the  laboratory  apparatus  of  the  higher 
critic  cannot  analyze  it  and  point  out  the  different 
strata.  The  Jewish  schools  of  Babylonia  and  Jeru¬ 
salem,  while  pursuing  similar  lines,  have  left  us  works 
of  two  types,  occasionally  referred  to  below. 

There  are  extant  seven  Targums  or  paraphrases  of 
the  Old  Testament.  These  are  as  follows:  (i)  Three 
on  the  Pentateuch;  (2)  one  on  the  Prophets;  and 
(3)  three  on  the  Hagiographa. 

78.  The  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch  deserve  the 
most  attention,  (i)  The  best  known  and  the  official 
Targum  is  that  attributed  to  Onkelos.  According  to 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  he  was  a  proselyte  of  the 
first  century.  But  it  seems  that  the  names  Onkelos 
and  Aquila  (comp.  §49)  have  been  confused,  so  that  it 
is  quite  generally  conceded  that  the  author  of  this 
famous  paraphrase  is  unknown.  It  is  attributed  in  its 
present  form  to  later  than  the  second  century, 
based,  however,  on  earlier  material.  It  is  also  called 
the  Babylonian  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch.  Often  it 
is  a  beautifully  literal  and  simple  translation,  rather 
than  a  paraphrase  of  the  Hebrew.  When  the  mean¬ 
ing  is  obscure  some  explanatory  word  or  clause  is 
inserted,  literal  terms  supplant  figurative  expressions 
in  the  Hebrew,  and  the  commonly  accepted  interpre¬ 
tation  of  disputed  passages  finds  place  in  the  volume. 

(2)  A  fragmentary  Targum  of  certain  parts  of 


From  Erfurt  Manuscript  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  (Joshua  i  :  2-5),  showing 
T-argum  in  alternate  verses;  iormerly  property  of  Johann  Reuchlin 


J 


r 


/ 


.  /  ■ 

’  ■  / •  -••  ■-- 
*:  N^vt/ 

■  •"'  /•  ^‘£r.  -‘- 


'r 


'  > 


{ 


•>i.f 


T,v 


r  T 


*  ;'j» 

•.'  r'-. 


1 


\ 


:  .'-•f 


/ 


•i 


95 


Tar  gums  of  the  Pentateuch 

the  Pentateuch,  embracing  about  850  verses,  and 
known  as  Jerusalem  Targum  II.  This  Targum  is 
thought  to  be  due  to  the  selection  of  certain  pas¬ 
sages  designed  to  interpolate  or  fill  out  the  so-called 
Targum  of  Onkelos.  Its  language  is  the  Aramaic 
of  Palestine,  and  its  form  quite  paraphrastic.  It  is 
inferior  to  Onkelos. 

(3)  The  Jerusalem  Targum  I,  or  Targum  of  Jona¬ 
than  (pseudo-Jonathan).  This  complete  Targum 
(only  about  a  dozen  verses  lacking)  on  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  seems  to  owe  its  origin  to  a  kind  of  compila¬ 
tion  of  the  above  Nos.  (i)  and  (2).  The  text  is 
handled  freely,  and  the  Targum  is  replete  with  popu¬ 
lar  stories  and  marginal  notes  that  have  grown  up 
around  the  text  during  the  centuries.  Figurative 
terms  are  displaced  by  literal,  and  all  anthropo¬ 
morphisms  are  thrown  out.  The  religious  and  dog¬ 
matic  conceptions  of  Judaism  are  prominent  through¬ 
out  this  Targum.  Targum  No.  (i)  was  first  printed 
without  vowels  at  Bologna  in  1482  A.  D.,  and  with 
vowels  in  1491.  The  first  edition  of  No.  (2)  was 
printed  in  Venice  in  1517,  and  the  first  of  No.  (3) 
appeared  in  Venice  in  1591. 

79.  The  one  great  Targum  on  the  Prophets  is  at¬ 
tributed  to  Jonathan  Bar  Uzziel,  a  pupil  of  Hillel  in 
the  first  half  of  the  first  century  B.  C.  It  is  conjec¬ 
tured,  but  wrongfully,  to  be  the  work  of  Rabbi  Joseph 
bar  Hiyya.  It  is  thought  to  have  received  its  final 
form  in  Babylon  in  the  fifth  century.  The  similarity 
of  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  to  that  of  the  so-called 


96  The  Tar  glims — yewish  Paraphrases 

Onkelos  of  the  Pentateuch  is  striking.  It  agrees 
with  the  latter’s  method  of  avoiding  figures,  anthropo¬ 
morphisms,  and  of  toning  down  difficulties  by  the 
insertion  of  words  and  brief  expressions.  It  gives 
a  more  literal  rendering  of  the  historical  books  than 
of  the  prophetic.  Some  of  the  difficult  poetic  pas¬ 
sages  are  merely  paraphrased.  Occasionally  a  pas¬ 
sage,  like  that  of  Hosea  i  :  3f.,  is  turned  wholly  from 
the  meaning  of  the  original,  and  is  devoted  to  a  mor¬ 
alizing  upon  Israel’s  career.  Thus  Isaiah  5:  if.  is  nof 
translated  at  all,  but  interpreted.  Geographical  names 
are  often  transferred  into  the  later  place-names.  This 
Targum  on  the  Prophets  is  about  midway  in  faithful¬ 
ness  to  the  original,  between  the  so-called  Onkelos  and 
Jerusalem  Targum  I  on  the  Pentateuch.  This  Tar¬ 
gum  was  first  printed  at  Leiria,  Portugal,  in  1494 
A.  D.,  with  the  Hebrew  text  and  a  rabbinical  com¬ 
mentary. 

80.  The  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa  are  all 
comparatively  late  in  origin.  They  seem  to  have 
arisen  almost  after  the  need  for  such  paraphrases  had 
passed  by.  The  earliest  authentic  mention  of  them 
is  found  in  the  eleventh  century.  The  Hagiographa 
are  divided  into  three  groups :  ( i )  Psalms,  Proverbs 
and  Job ;  Psalms  and  Job  are  very  like  in  their  trans¬ 
lation ;  Job,  however,  has  a  double  rendering  of  about 
fifty  verses,  and  a  few  have  a  third  explanation  or 
translation.  These  additional  renderings  were  added 
by  some  interpolator  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  centuries, 
for  his  language  is  late  and  artificial,  and  distinctly 


97 


Tar  gums  of  the  Hagiographa 

marks  his  work  as  explanatory.  Proverbs  stands 
alone  among  the  Targums.  It  is  a  strange  mixture 
of  Aramaic  and  Syriac.  It  is  thought  to  have  been 
made,  not  entirely  from  the  Hebrew,  but  in  large  part 
from  the  Syriac  version,  for  about  one-third  of  it  is 
almost  identical  with  the  Syriac  version. 

(2)  The  Targums  on  the  Megilloth  (“  Rolls,” 
that  is.  Song  of  Songs,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesi¬ 
astes  and  Esther)  are  paraphrases  rather  than  transla¬ 
tions  of  the  Hebrew.  They  abound  in  citations  of 
historical  parallels,  reasons  are  given  for  the  occur¬ 
rence  of  certain  events,  words  are  philologically  ex¬ 
plained,  etc.  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  and  Song  of 
Songs  almost  touch  the  limits  in  paraphrastic  free¬ 
dom.  More  than  half  of  the  so-called  Targum  of 
Esther  contains  legends  about  Solomon,  the  Queen 
of  Sheba,  etc.  All  these  Targums  were  probably  the 
work  of  different  men. 

(3)  There  were  no  known  Targums  of  Chronicles 
until  after  the  issuance  of  the  Polyglot  P)iblcs.  Two 
very  imperfect  texts  have  been  discovered  and  edited. 
Of  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  no  known  Targums 
exist. 

81.  The  Targums  of  the  entire  Old  Testament 
preserve  for  us  the  earliest  paraphrases  and  exposi¬ 
tions  of  that  part  of  Holy  Writ.  They  give  us  the 
Jewish  rendering  of  that  text  into  Aramaic,  presum¬ 
ably  at  a  time  when  its  meaning  was  comparatively 
well-known.  Where  their  renderings  pass  beyond 
paraphrase  into  comment  we  are  to  remember  that 


98  The  Tar  gums — -Jewish  Paraphrases 

the  comments  were  by  Jews  who  were  sympathetic  in 
language  and  thought  with  the  Hebrew  language, 
however  fanciful  now  and  then  their  interpretations 
may  have  been.  These  considerations  give  value  to 
the  Targums  on  the  interpretative  side,  particularly 
of  Jewish  thought  and  life,  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Now  on  the  text-critical  side  the  value  of  these  docu¬ 
ments  is  not  great.  But  there  is  a  value  which  even 
the  editors  of  the  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible  recog¬ 
nized,  as  will  be  seen  by  consulting  the  “  variant  read¬ 
ings  ”  at  the  bottom  of  their  pages.  However,  we  are 
still  in  need  of  critical  editions  of  these  old  texts  be¬ 
fore  scholars  can  be  sure  of  the  accuracy  of  the  text 
which  is  at  their  disposal. 


CHAPTER  X 


OTHER  EASTERN  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

82.  Christianity  was  not  limited  in  its  adherents 
to  the  peoples  who  bordered  on  the  Mediterranean 
sea-coast.  Many  important  races  and  tongues  whose 
boundaries  lay  next  the  coast-peoples  embraced  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  of  Christians.  Such  adhercncy 
soon  called  for  the  Bible  of  the  new  truth,  translated 
into  the  various  native  tongues  of  the  believers.  Local 
scholars  soon  arose  to  perform  this  important  task, 
so  that  each  people  or  race  sooner  or  later  possessed 
a  copy  of  the  Bible  translated  into  its  own  tongue. 
These  translations  were  usually  made  from  the  ver¬ 
sion  of  scriptures  which  had  been  introduced  to  each 
individual  province  or  race.  Their  value  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  for  whom  they  had  been  translated  was,  of  course, 
very  great ;  but  to  us,  of  later  times,  it  is  only  of  com¬ 
parative  importance.  For  we  must  estimate  it  on  the 
answer  to  several  questions,  such  as :  Who  was  the 
translator?  How  well  equipped  was  he  for  that  great 
work?  From  what  version  of  the  Bible  did  he  trans¬ 
late?  How  faithfully  has  he  translated  the  text  before 
him  ?  Did  he  use  more  than  one  version  as  the  basis 
of  his  translation  ?  Did  he  use  any  undue  liberty  with 
the  text  before  him?  We  can  scarcely  expect  an  an¬ 
swer  to  all  these  questions,  but  enough  can  usually  be 

99 


ICO 


Other  Easterii  Versions 


found  to  help  us  estimate,  at  least  approximately,  the 
value  that  we  are  to  attach  to  these  versions  relative 
to  the  English  Bible  of  to-day. 

83.  The  Coptic  Version:  As  soon  as  Egypt  as  a 
whole  began  to  yield  to  the  power  of  Christianity  the 
country  was  filled  with  hermits  and  ecclesiastical  offi¬ 
cials.  Early  in  the  fourth  century  Pachomius,  the 
founder  of  monastic  life,  was  converted,  and  estab¬ 
lished  a  monastery  (322  A.  D.)  in  Upper  Egypt.  The 
necessities  of  this  monastic  community  called  for  a 
version  of  the  scriptures  in  their  native  tongue,  the 
Coptic.  Scholars  find  five  or  six  Coptic  dialects  in  the 
remnants  of  ancient  literatures.  Scripture  versions 
of  Coptic  are  classified  as  follows :  Sahidic,  Fayyumic 
and  Bohairic. 

The  most  important  of  these  versions  is  the  Sahidic, 
because  of  its  greater  age.  It  certainly  reaches  back 
to  the  sixth  century,  if  not  earlier,  and  had  its  origin 
in  U'pper  Egypt.  Its  version  of  the  book  of  Job  is 
of  especial  interest,  for  it  omits  between  three  and 
four  hundred  lines  or  half  verses  that  are  supplied  in 
Origen’s  Hexapla.  Hence  it  is  thought  that  the  Sa¬ 
hidic  version  represents  a  pre-Origenistic  text  of  the 
Septuagint,  like  the  Old  Latin.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  thought  to  be  nearer  the  truth  to  regard  the  Sa¬ 
hidic  Job  as  a  translation  of  Origen’s  revised  text  of 
the  Septuagint,  with  the  omission  of  the  second  half 
of  the  verses  under  Origen’s  asterisk.  There  are  sev¬ 
eral  codices  of  Job,  and  some  manuscripts  that  have 
value  as  aids  in  determining  the  Septuagint  text. 


lOI 


The  Ethiopic  Version 

The  Bohairic  version  of  the  Old  Testament  prob¬ 
ably  dates  from  the  sixth  century.  It  is  thought  to 
have  been  of  Alexandrian  origin,  for  that  language  at 
a  later  time  was  the  ecclesiastical  language  of  Alexan¬ 
dria.  The  larger  part  of  its  text,  viz.,  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  the  Prophets,  have 
been  critically  edited.  This  particular  version  is  now 
used  by  the  Coptic  or  Egyptian  Christians,  and  is 
sometimes,  though  inaccurately,  called  the  “  Mem- 
phitic  ”  version.  The  use  of  this  version  practically 
ceased  in  Lower  Egypt  after  the  Arab  invasion.  In 
fact,  the  Bohairic  language  yielded  to  the  invaders, 
while  the  Sahidic  was  in  use  in  Upper  Egypt  for  sev¬ 
eral  centuries  later. 

The  Fayyumic  version  pertains  almost  exclusively 
to  the  New  Testament. 

84.  The  Ethiopic  Version :  The  existence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  Abyssinia  likewise  produced  a  version  of  the 
Bible  in  the  native  tongue,  the  Gc‘cz,  or  Ethiopic. 
Christianity  in  this  country  is  thought  to  go  back  to 
the  fourth  century.  But  the  current  Ethiopic  ver¬ 
sion  cannot  be  traced  back  of  the  sixth  or  fifth. 
The  translation  was  made  from  the  Septuagint.  The 
large  collection  of  Ethiopic  manuscripts  in  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Museum  was  acquired  at  the  time  of  the  Abys¬ 
sinian  war  in  1867.  But  these  represent  a  late  re¬ 
vision,  made  apparently  from  some  Arabic  or  Coptic 
version,  and  even  from  the  Hebrew,  in  the  middle 
ages  or  later.  We  have  the  Bible  of  the  Septuagint 
entire  except  Maccabees  in  this  version.  In  addition 


102 


Other  Eastern  Versions 


there  are  the  Book  of  Enoch,  Jubilees,  4  Esdras,  Rest 
of  the  Words  of  Baruch,  etc.  There  was  no  distinc¬ 
tion  between  canonical  and  non-canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  number  of  Old  Testament 
books  is  usually  46,  though  there  is  some  variation  in 
the  figures.  Genesis-Kings,  called  the  Octateuch, 
was  edited  by  Dillmann  (1853)  ;  Psalms  by  Ludolf 
(1701)  ;  Song  of  Songs  by  Nisselius  (1656)  ;  Lamen¬ 
tations  by  Bachmann  (1893).  The  Bthiopic  version 
is  usually  a  faithful  translation  of  the  Greek,  but  its 
critical  value  must  await  the  discussion  of  other  and 
more  pressing  versional  questions. 

85.  The  Gothic  Version:  The  Goths  of  Dacia  in 
Europe  invaded  Cappadocia  in  the  third  century. 
Among  the  captives  carried  away  were  some  Chris¬ 
tians.  Ulfilas  was  born  in  Dacia,  of  captive  Christian 
parents,  about  310  A.  D.  His  sturdy,  aggressive 
Christian  character  pushed  him  to  the  front,  so  that 
about  340  he  was  consecrated  bishop  either  at  Con¬ 
stantinople  or  Antioch.  After  maintaining  his  bish¬ 
opric  in  Dacia  for  seven  years  he  was  driven  to 
Moesia,  the  modern  Servia  and  Bulgaria.  In  this 
country  Ulfilas  translated  the  Bible  into  the  language 
of  the  Goths,  the  captors  of  his  parents.  He  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  invented  an  alphabet  before  he  could 
undertake  the  immense  task  of  translating  the  Bible 
into  the  Gothic  tongue.  His  work  was  certainly  done 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  for  he  died 

by  383- 

A  contemporary,  Philostorgius,  states  that  Ulfilas 


L 


idi  ®  ^ 

g;  0^ 

ll.  ^  j;  ll  ISH  ^ 

j  stfiUi»»^d^^?A,f^/iq/l 

ja^flU-l'^K'.^r  Xjl^ei#' 
A  <c  %zmy.i:mzQ^/\^ 
y,m^^C*fi-n\3^z^nz 

0>i*Cz0iy  h"f\^iKc*h' 

Hsj:  A  i/  «»-in%je- 

%nn.h.^d%.c.t\ 

li.  ft  «ny  ^  m- Cjr* 
A  V^rA^jT^wr  H, 
4i’fl#fi,Cifl^A:-f-5;fl 

A  V  :  <i>  ^  a>  J?,  5  a>*  A 

•f'sA  ^•^:  fl.  -f:  05# 

#»^/isnAX*A^^  A= 
<2>  H  •#• /:  ^:  A'-' JJ  ^ 

tic/  <0*:/n  ^s 
^  ATc!/  ^  ^  ^  tf-A^ A 

•A  rfij  h /:  W-;  <D  h -AX: 

w  h  iSih,-yi*/\y 

if^  C'Oytl  ^ZfRAfJ  <p 
t0fA^Zf:i\iJash>:(f}oa 
A^m  d  4ii*^5  ^  <I>- 
A<»*A.AAsA4iA-.A5^ 
K  'rt  ^  /r-i  A  A<^:  A'^/IV 
.s  A  tfi  ^  Ja^A- 

A  #h  £-.  A  ^  C7i  diy  i -A^. : 

y‘  5^^- AK*Bir 

\Af&A.^AArfl-9w.7 

■•  ';_*■  , 


/*? 


5* 


«B  9*  Jl  ®*  A-fcll  ^ 

«w9’je  t&o’fU’ihiOK 

#n'fI*^«/l/l:«»/WA,*.- 
a»*f  *>19 -n  arji 
nt-.a)7^’iz,u..a>^in 

ir :  :  a>*  ft  ^*.-f| /I. 

;»  ft.  hj<p  rft  p  c  •?,.  W-/!-, 

n  *9/^5  <p*ft  ‘f*!09^iw»^» 
-f*:  4^cr  ft  ?- ft  It 
5  .ft /Ik 

ipW^^lh-.n^o:  lift  A-.^ 
atyh’fH-.Ke^-tDS.i 
?4  £  *e  ITos^.-- ft  «>ft :  c 
7. A  h-ja>^  cy.€D'i*H}^, 
A>»£<w---<DA  ?41C:®. 
ft  ■ft:.  fl  .ft  «?•- Aw  V-ft 
AC’?.A^ 

aftl4’:fft’'^-fi)t'06 
^•-'A  £.0.:  H  {..ft  iJ.-fliai' 
tt’t’--  h-ft^liA JTft^ft-- 
A'^  4*:H  V<^’i-.<D<D’h 
^-.  ft+oSf.AMil/o^fl  * 

'm<D'h  ■r-vt-i'^^SKn 
«>ft-AjK‘BU'f»».:HP«l 

'?:  <P  a>*/l  4*5  ftft.^= Ajt 

fte>'4"-ATAu’o«^--H  P 
«ft‘5iil>?wA5Aj>^ 
ft  ^5je>w5i/<«A^<P^ 

^■<iiAj»»fl>*ft'ft-^ 
A--ft*4.ii-.(iD4*i'‘*'5^ 
fteift=AC'?:‘a>ft^’^ 

A  ft  ft  ft.  U*-- <P 

ft'-AftOft-W^’J? 

ftj5d»*;Si*s®» 


2/ 


!’3sUift.;.j.'-.iSi'; 


Ethiopic  Text :  Exodus  29  ;  9-21 


••iK 


The  Georgian  Version  103 

translated  ‘‘  all  the  books  of  the  Scripture  with  the 
exception  of  the  books  of  the  Kings,  which  he  omitted 
because  they  are  a  mere  narrative  of  military  ex¬ 
ploits,  and  the  Gothic  tribes  were  especially  fond  of 
war/’  Only  fragments  of  the  Old  Testament  remain 
among  the  about  a  dozen  known  manuscripts  of  the 
Gothic  Version.  These  fragments  include  parts  of 
Genesis  5,  Psalm  52  and  Nehemiah  5-7,  and  are 
largely  lists  of  names  or  numbers. 

A  study  of  the  version  shows  that  it  is  most  closely 
related  to  the  Lucian  text  (comp.  §55)  of  the  Greek. 
This  would  seem  to  be  natural  as  that  version  of  the 
Greek  was  current  in  Asia  Minor  during  the  century 
of  Ulfilas’  activity. 

86.  The  Georgian  Version:  This,  like  the  fore¬ 
going  version,  arose  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  century  on 
the  outskirts  of  Christianity.  Armenian  tradition 
ascribes  it  to  the  work  of  Mesrop,  who  is  said  to  have 
invented  the  Georgian  alphabet.  There  is  in  the  mon¬ 
astery  at  Mount  Sinai,  a  papyrus  Psalter  of  the  sev¬ 
enth  or  eighth  century,  and  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  and 
a  Psalter  dated  in  the  ninth  century.  A  manuscript 
of  the  whole  Bible,  with  some  omissions  in  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch,  is  now  preserved  in  two  volumes  in  the 
Iberian  monastery  on  Mount  Athos.  A  manuscript 
of  the  Prophets  at  Jerusalem  is  ascribed  to  the  elev¬ 
enth  century.  The  best  printed  edition  seems  to  have 
been  that  issued  at  Moscow  in  1743.  This  copy  of 
the  version  has  been  supplied  in  certain  gaps  by  the 
use  of  passages  translated  from  the  Slavonic  Bible. 


104 


Other  Eastern  Versions 


Comparison  of  the  different  manuscripts  shows  that 
there  have  been  frequent  revisions  and  additions. 
This  version,  like  the  preceding,  was  doubtless  made 
from  the  Greek,  with  some  hints  at  the  Syriac,  though 
there  is  not  as  yet  any  critical  edition  which  may  be 
used  as  an  aid  in  determining  the  original  Greek  text. 

87.  The  Slavonic  Version  was  the  Bible  of  one  of 
the  great  races  contiguous  to  the  centers  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  early  centuries.  Its  origin  is  not  traced 
back  of  the  ninth  century.  The  work  is  attributed 
to  two  brothers,  Cyril  and  Methodius,  sons  of  a 
Greek  nobleman,  whose  relations  to  Slavonic  neigh¬ 
bors  gave  them  a  knowledge  of  that  tongue.  Their 
first  efforts  are  thought  to  have  been  bent  towards 
translating  such  parts  of  the  Bible  into  the  tongue 
of  the  Bulgarian  Slavs  as  would  be  of  most  use  in 
church  services.  Later,  the  whole  Bible  was  rendered 
into  the  tongue  of  these  peoples.  Some  Slavic  schol¬ 
ars  maintain  that  the  original  tongue  into  which  the 
Bible  was  translated  was  closely  similar  to  the  old 
Bulgarian. 

Some  of  the  manuscripts  of  this  version  date  from 
the  tenth  or  eleventh  century.  But  the  oldest  manu¬ 
script  of  the  whole  Bible  is  very  late,  1499,  and  is 
now  at  Moscow,  known  as  the  Codex  Gennadius.  Of 
the  Old  Testament  manuscripts,  the  oldest  are  of  the 
Psalter,  reaching  back  to  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  cen¬ 
tury.  Special  studies  of  several  Old  Testament 
books  have  been  published  in  recent  years.  Greater 
facilities  for  travel  and  study  in  Slavic  countries  may 


The  Slavonic  Version 


105 


lead  to  the  discovery  of  many  more  manuscripts  of 
this  peculiar  work. 

The  value  of  this  version  differs  in  different  books 


/ 


JOO- 


N 


''‘'1 


AJJ* 


N. 


too- 


o 


k, 

\ 


J 
/  I 

- 

Ujcian  /  y  I 

■V  ^  4 


.1  1  1  1  ' 

1 

1 

1  1  '  ''  ^eJrgian  i  I 

I  1  1  Armenian  s!  |  1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

fci 

I  i  1 

1  1  1 

1  1 

1 

1 

--4 

''v 

V. 

'N. 

>>  / 1  '  1 

\  /: 

"f!' 

"  1 

1 

1 

'  •X. 

>  ^  X  / 

c 

? 

u 

< 

ft 

1 

1  5 

1  ® 

J  5u*LonJc 

?  '  1  ^ 

(§1  1  1 

.^1  1  i 

?i  1  1 

h 

1 

< 

u) 

V 

i/> 

1  tu 

. 

1  ^ 

1 

tl  *  *  j 

1  f 

J'  1  ^ 

I 

0  * 

1  s> 

^l*f 

1  y 

1  ^1 
:  Si 

<1 

1 

'  ' 

1  1 

1  ' 

1 

1 

1  1  1 

1  1  1 

1  II 

— f— 1 — 

1  1 

L  ■! 

Too-. 


doo> 


1300- 


Diagram  showing  sources  in  general  of  the  minor  Eastern  Versions Cchapx) 

of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Pentateuch  (the  Law)’, 
the  “  Prophets  ”  of  the  Jewish  canonical  division,  the 


io6  Other  Eastern  Versions 

Psalter,  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and 
Song  of  Songs  were  translated  by  different  persons 
from  the  Greek.  The  Book  of  Esther  was  translated 
from  Hebrew;  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  such 
other  books  as  are  found  in  the  Latin  Bible,  were 
translated  from  the  Vulgate,  just  before  the  date  of 
the  Gennadius  Codex  of  1499.  ^bis  version,  when 
critically  edited,  will  be  useful  in  ascertaining  the 
readings  of  the  Greek  of  the  original  text  of  such  as 
were  translated  from  the  Greek,  and  of  the  Vulgate 
where  that  was  the  basis  of  a  translation,  and  of  the 
Hebrew  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 

88.  The  Armenian  Version  served  the  purpose  of 
supplying  with  the  Bible  the  Christian  communities  of 
Asia  Minor.  An  Armenian  church  is  mentioned  in 
the  third  century.  The  Armenians  seem  to  have  been 
evangelized  by  Syrian  Christians.  Their  Bible  was 
a  translation  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  and  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  as  maintained  by  F.  C.  Cony- 
beare,  from  the  Septuagint.  But  its  revision  and  cor¬ 
rection  seem  to  have  been  made  by  the  use  of  the 
Syriac  and  Hebrew  texts.  It  is  noticeable  that  the 
chapters  and  verses  of  Jeremiah  are  arranged,  not 
as  in  the  Septuagint,  but  as  in  the  Syriac  and  Hebrew. 
Where  the  Syriac  and  Hebrew  differ,  it  usually  fol¬ 
lows  the  Hebrew.  Such  composite  character  of  the 
Armenian  Version  is  thought  to  be  due  to  the  use  of 
Origen’s  Hexaplar  text,  whose  symbols  now  and  then 
seem  to  find  place,  in  the  addition  from  other  ver¬ 
sions,  in  Armenian  manuscripts. 


The  Armenian  Version 


107 


Conybeare  says  that  the  Armenian  version  is  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  and  accurate  of  all  the  versions. 
Its  language  is  so  closely  allied,  in  grammar,  syntax 
and  idioms,  to  the  Greek  that  its  renderings  very 
faithfully  transmit  the  meaning  of  the  original  text. 

The  Armenian  version  contains  the  books  of  the 
Septuagint  in  the  same  order  up  to  i  and  2  Esdras 
(where  the  latter  is  Ezra  in  the  Greek)  ;  Nehemiah 
(called  3  Esdras  in  the  margin),  Esther,  Judith,  Tobit, 
I,  2  and  3  Maccabees,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes^ 
Song  of  Songs,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Job,  Isaiah, 
the  twelve  Prophets,  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Lamentations, 
Death  of  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  Ezekiel  and  Death  of 
Ezekiel.  The  following  additional  apocryphal  books 
are  found  in  the  manuscripts :  the  Testament  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs,  the  History  of  Joseph  and  his 
wife  Asenath ;  and  the  Hymn  of  Asenath.  These* 
latter  are  not  found  in  the  printed  editions  of  the 
Armenian  Bible,  nor  are  they  in  all  manuscripts.  There 
are  also  some  further  irregularities  in  the  arrange¬ 
ment  of  these  various  books.  Each  Old  Testament 
book  has  a  preface  containing  an  introduction  and 
summary  of  contents.  In  addition  to  the  usual  pref¬ 
ace  some  manuscripts  have  a  special  introduction,  as 
a  passage  from  David  the  Philosopher,  from  Athan¬ 
asius,  from  Epiphanius  of  Cyprus.  Daniel  is  a  trans¬ 
lation  of  Theodotion’s  version  as  found  in  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  (§50). 

Printed  editions  of  the  Armenian  Bible  appeared 
first  at  Amsterdam  in  1666;  in  Venice  in  1733.  The 


io8  Other  Eastern  Versions 

first  critical  edition  appeared  in  Venice  in  1805,  edited 
by  Zohrab,  as  a  result  of  a  collation  of  several  manu¬ 
scripts.  A  later  edition  appeared  in  Venice  in  i860. 

89.  When  the  Arab  invasion  of  Syria  and  Egypt 
had  practically  supplanted  the  native  tongues  by  the 
Arabic,  the  Christians  of  these  regions  began  to 
require  and  to  secure  the  Bible  in  Arabic.  Arabic 
versions  of  the  Old  Testament  are  based  on  several 
originals,  Greek,  Syriac,  Hebrew  and  Samaritan. 
There  are  many  manuscripts  of  various  values,  but 
scarcely  utilized  as  yet  for  critical  purposes.  The 
whole  Old  Testament  in  Arabic  appeared  in  the  Paris 
Polyglot,  and  with  slight  variations  in  Walton’s  Poly¬ 
glot.  The  Pentateuch  was  the  translation  of  Sa‘adya 
the  Ga’on,  a  learned  rabbi  of  the  Fayyum,  in 
Upper  Egypt,  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew ;  Joshua 
was  also  translated  from  the  Hebrew;  Judges,  Sam¬ 
uel,  Kings,  Chronicles  and  Job  were  made  from  the 
Peshitta;  the  Prophets,  Psalms  and  Proverbs  were 
translated  from  the  Septuagint.  This  strange  mix- 
up  was  found  by  the  editors  of  the  Polyglot  in  an 
Egyptian  manuscript  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

There  are  several  manuscripts  of  the  above  trans¬ 
lations,  which  are  available  for  students.  An  Arabic 
translation  of  the  Coptic  version  of  the  Septuagint  is 
extant.  There  are  also  several  manuscripts  of  an 
Arabic  translation  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  But 
the  most  interesting  for  textual  study  is  the  Arabic 
translation  direct  from  the  Hebrew.  This  portion 
of  the  Arabic  Old  Testament,  however,  agrees  so 


The  Arabic  Versions 


109 


thoroughly  with  the  Hebrew  that  its  variations  are 
of  slight  textual  value.  Several  individual  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament  have  appeared  during  the  last 
three  centuries,  but  much  remains  to  be  done  to  ascer¬ 
tain  the  real  value  of  this  version  for  the  textual  study 
of  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER  XI 


OLD  TESTAMENT  MATERIAL  SUMMED  UP 

90.  In  the  preceding  eight  chapters  (III-X)  a 
bird’s-eye  view  has  been  given  of  all  the  principal 
versions  of  the  Old  Testament  except  those  in  early 
English  and  the  English  language.  We  have  seen 
that  they  stretch  over  a  large  area  and  have  various 
values.  Some  are  translations  direct  from  the  He¬ 
brew,  and  thus  bring  us  within  one  step  of  that  early 
sacred  text ;  others  are  translations  of  translations, 
and  consequently  are  two  steps  distant  from  the  He¬ 
brew.  If  we  should  confine  our  attention  only  to 
translations  direct  from  the  Hebrew,  our  discussion 
would  be  either  too  brief  or  too  technical  for  inter¬ 
esting  reading.  Such  a  restriction  would  rule  out  all 
early  English  versions,  even  down  to  Tyndale’s  work. 

Though  a  translation  of  a  translation  may  not  be 
of  great  importance,  still  its  evidence  is  valuable  when 
we  are  seeking  the  true  reading  of  a  text  whose  orig¬ 
inal  is  irrecoverably  lost,  as  is  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Therefore  we  have  included  in  these 
chapters  a  brief  description  of  several  versions  that 
are  rarely  treated  in  a  popular  work.  These  versions 
were  prepared  for  peoples  whose  homes  were  on  the 
outer  borders  of  the  nations  where  Christianity  first 
made  large  conquests.  The  influence  of  such  ver- 

IIO 


Relation  of  Hebrew  to  Versions  1 1 1 

sions  on  the  English  Bible  may  be  slight,  but  they 
are  nevertheless  worth  our  consideration.  Such  are 
the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Gothic,  Georgian,  Slavonic,  Ar¬ 
menian  and  Arabic. 

91.  The  true  relations  of  these  versions  may  be 
best  represented  by  the  accompanying  chart. 


Diagram  showing  general  relations  or  the  AncientVersions  to  the  Hebrew  Charx!) 


I 

I 

A 


«00- 

iiO« 

100- 


s.  'A  ✓ 


_ _ i _ 

—  I  N 

-rvw - - , 

1 

1 

1 

• 

1 

1 

<• 

—  f!  u 

ui 

H 

J 

0 

< 

(0 

< 

s 

0 

O' 

±> 

- 

L 

UJ 

I 

D 

> 

92.  The  central  shaft  of  the  chart  is  the  Hebrew 
text,  from  which  several  of  the  greatest  versions  of 
the  Bible  have  been  translated  directly.  This  tie- 
brew  text  itself  has  been  multiplied  by  the  same  falli- 


1 1 2  Old  Testament  Material  Summed  Up 

ble  means  as  all  other  books  of  ancient  times,  by 
scribes  and  copyists,  who  not  only  repeated  the  mis¬ 
takes  of  their  predecessors,  but  added  thereto  their 
own  errors.  Such  repetition  of  errors  through  cen¬ 
turies  without  a  check  of  any  kind  would  result  in  a 
very  corrupt  text,  for  the  tendency  of  errors  to  mul¬ 
tiply  is  evident  in  every  ancient  manuscript  whose 
history  we  can  trace. 

Now  the  best  kind  of  checks  on  errors,  and  the 
best  means  of  discovering  them  after  they  are  made 
are  the  several  ancient  versions  that  were  a  copy  of, 
or  were  translated  directly  from,  the  original  Hebrew 
or  Massoretic  text  as  it  existed  in  those  days.  We 
then  have  evidence  that  is  valuable  as  to  what  the 
Hebrew  text  was  at  the  times  when  these  several 
translations  were  made  from  it.  The  degree  of  that 
value  is,  of  course,  dependent  on  the  purity  of  the 
text  that  we  possess  of  each  several  translation.  For 
example,  the  Septuagint  was  translated  directly  from 
the  Hebrew  in  the  third  and  second  centuries  B.  C. ; 
if  our  best  text  of  the  Septuagint  is  an  exact  repro¬ 
duction  of  the  first  translation  from  the  Hebrew  it 
can  practically  settle  what  the  Hebrew  text  was  at 
that  time.  If  the  Septuagint  text  is  not  pure,  then 
the  scholar’s  task  is  plain.  By  a  study  of  ^every  avail¬ 
able  manuscript  of  the  Septuagint,  and  of  all  the 
translations  made  directly  from  it,  he  must  carefully 
weigh  the  evidence  and  as  approximately  as  possible 
determine  what  that  Septuagint  original  was. 

This  is  precisely  what  must  be  done  for  every  trans- 


The  Septuagint  1 1 3 

lation  from  the  Hebrew,  before  we  may  be  sure  that 
we  are  making  any  real  progress  in  finding  out  the 
state  of  the  Hebrew  text  when  such  translation  was 
made.  The  work  requires  long  and  patient  study  and 
research  if  it  avails  for  the  best  results  in  Bible  study. 

93.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  (Chap.  IV)  is  not  a 
version,  since  it  is  not  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew. 
It  was  doubtless  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
fifth  century  B.  C.,  written  in  old  characters.  When 
it  broke  relations  with  the  text  preserved  among  the 
Hebrews  it  soon  began  to  bear  marks  of  its  independ¬ 
ence.  It  contains  the  Pentateuch  only,  and  its  varia¬ 
tions  from  the  Hebrew  are  enough  to  stamp  it  as  the 
Bible  of  the  Samaritans.  These  variations,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  are  attributable  to  various  causes. 
Those  which  have  the  most  interest  for  Bible  stu¬ 
dents  are  such  as  presumably  preserve  a  better  text 
than  our  present  Hebrew  itself.  These  are  not  many, 
but  they  are  useful.  The  agreement  of  some  of 
these  variations  with  those  of  the  Septuagint,  and 
of  the  other  Greek  versions,  is  confirmatory  both  of 
the  correctness  of  its  own  readings  and  of  the  ver¬ 
sions  with  which  it  agrees.  The  fact  that  this  is  the 
earliest  text  of  the  Bible  independent  of  the  Hebrew 
makes  it  of  interest  to  every  one  who  not  only  visits 
Nablus,  the  home  of  a  remnant  of  the  ancient  Sa¬ 
maritans,  but  delights  in  a  study  of  every  scrap  of 
testimony  to  the  early  text  of  the  Pentateuch. 

94.  The  Septuagint  is  the  first  ancient  translation 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testa- 


1 1 4  Old  Testament  Material  Summed  Up 

ment.  It  was  made  at  Alexandria  under  the  liberal¬ 
izing  influence  of  Greek  thought  and  Greek  civiliza¬ 
tion.  It  was  made  from  the  Hebrew  text  that  was 
current  in  those  days  (about  280-130  B.  C.),  by  men 
who  were  reasonably  familiar  with  both  languages. 
But  their  style  of  Greek  and  their  inability  to  render 
certain  expressions  into  an  idiomatic  Greek  show  that 
the  translators  were  probably  Alexandrian  or  Egyp¬ 
tian  Jews.  We  must  not  forget,  too,  that  the  Hebrew 
at  that  time  was  probably  not  separated  into  words, 
nor  was  it  provided  with  vowel  points.  These  facts 
allowed  the  translators  greater  liberties  in  their  use 
of  the  text,  and  consequently  afforded  a  larger  liabil¬ 
ity  to  produce  a  version  that  should  vary  from  the 
next  translator’s  rendering  of  the  Hebrew.  Now,  we 
must  remember  that  the  Septuagint  started  at  this 
time  on  a  course  of  its  own.  It  was  copied  and  re¬ 
copied  over  and  over  again  during  the  succeeding 
centuries,  by  scribes  of  varying  intelligence.  Errors 
were  made,  re-made,  and  multiplied,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Hebrew  text.  Every  such  error  in  either  case 
carried  the  two  texts  farther  and  farther  from  each 
other.  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  rather 
than  attempt  to  harmonize  the  two  versions,  pro¬ 
duced  new  translations  into  the  Greek.  Origen,  how¬ 
ever,  undertook  the  colossal  task  of  collecting  into 
one  work  the  Hebrew,  the  three  Greek  versions 
named  above,  and  the  Septuagint ;  the  last  he  thor¬ 
oughly  revised  on  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
Even  in  his  day  the  variations  between  the  two  texts 


The  Vulgate  115 

were  many.  When  we  consider  that  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  texts  used  by  Origen  were  divergences 
from  the  same  original  text  in  the  second  or  third 
century  B.  C.,  we  begin  to  appreciate  how  rapidly  the 
errors  of  the  scribes  must  have  multiplied. 

After  Origen’s  time  the  Septuagint  was  several 
times  revised  in  order  to  make  it  represent  more 
faithfully  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  day.  These  re¬ 
visions  were  made  on  the  basis  of  the  best  texts  avail¬ 
able  to  the  revisers. 

Scholars  at  the  present  time  are  busying  them¬ 
selves  about  finding  from  all  the  Greek  versions  and 
parts  of  versions  extant  the  true  reading  of  the  Sep¬ 
tuagint  in  Origen’s  time,  in  the  first  century,  and  at 
such  other  times  as  its  text  can  be  fixed.  The  best 
text  to-day,  that  of  Swete,  is  the  result  of  a  compre¬ 
hensive  study  of  all  the  sources.  A  comparison  with 
the  Massoretic  Hebrew  will  give  us  many  readings, 
as  seen  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  that 
are  preferable  to  those  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

95.  Jerome  was  a  wise  scholar.  He  soon  saw 
that  revisions  of  the  Old  Latin  texts  would  be  endless. 
And  so  he  plunged  into  a  most  thorough  study  of  the 
Hebrew  original ;  and  out  of  it  produced  the  classical 
Latin  version  of  the  Old  Testament  (390-404  A.  D.). 
Though  ridiculed  and  condemned  by  many  leaders  in 
the  church,  he  pressed  on,  smarting  under  their 
lashes,  until  the  work  was  done.  His  translations 
were  made  from  Hebrew  manuscripts  current  in  Pal¬ 
estine  in  his  day.  It  is  probable  that  they  had  been 


1 1 6  Old  Testament  Material  Summed  Up 

guarded  by  one  of  the  great  Jewish  schools  in  exist¬ 
ence  at  that  time,  and  hence  may  have  been  free  from 
many  of  the  errors  found  in  manuscripts  of  other 
countries.  At  any  rate,  Jerome’s  work  furnishes  us 
a  Latin  version  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  his  day,  prob¬ 
ably  of  the  oldest  and  best  manuscript  that  he  could 
command.  His  translation  then  gives  us  a  key  to 
the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  text  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century  A.  D.  But  before  we  can  use 
Jerome’s  key  we  must  ascertain  as  nearly  as  possible 
the  very  Latin  text  into  which  Jerome  translated  the 
Hebrew.  To  do  this  it  is  necessary  to  collect  and 
compare  all  the  Latin  manuscripts  extant,  the  Latin 
quotations  of  the  church  fathers,  the  modifications 
made  in  Jerome’s  text  in  later  times,  and  any  trans¬ 
lations  of  that  text  made  during  the  centuries. 

Jerome’s  original  Latin  rendering  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.  Scholars,  however,  are  making  progress, 
and  the  best  Vulgate  text  is  of  some  value,  as  seen  in 
the  marginal  readings  of  the  Revised  Version. 

96.  The  Syriac  is  closely  akin  to  the  Hebrew. 
When  a  Syrian  translated  the  Old  Testament  into 
Syriac  his  task  was  not  any  greater  than  that  of  trans¬ 
lating  a  German  document  into  Dutch.  We  should 
then  expect  to  find  the  Syriac  a  good  representative 
of  faithfulness  to  the  original  Hebrew.  To  a  certain 
extent  we  are  not  disappointed.  But  another  ele¬ 
ment  enters  into  the  work  that  somewhat  discounts 
what  ought  to  be  a  valuable  aid.  The  Syrians  were 
so  close  to  the  Hebrews  in  modes  of  thought  and  ex- 


f«  ss. 


SjaP.a.lvrc.kr.cu  liucrf  .Luina. 

C3.t.  rr*  WprfiJpujfccK  t^nj  ulut^  et  tcni.^ 

{r->;«J'.5  -Uc  '7^7  ?*»  ‘  « 

t  fcWHJUSi,'  ct  ifRipJcfa 

"i'  Ttl-Ttr; 

|vr  'aiwiTemi  «  (p{nj«0  fsrcbawr  fa 

Trx»i-r«c  »^ir6y-v?»'3r»i?;^-x 
pff  a^rfm.  cf  ^tt!i  5t7K»  fiat  for,'  i  U 

*TT  r  vV'flTSv>X3H  i  iTTi?  5  v»y*ii.rw  !lK^f '  *>"  i 

clii  for.  «  v^rfo  foc^-’-y  b<a»s.  rr  tsi 
'j  r»iTs  if  4  s?  v 

eJi|*  ^afotvT 

'f  0'  iV  >•  /c  A*  *=•*'•  <?  •  >  'r  f  x«  «trt^i=r5*  Tstf 

KrtfPatJ.  t  vccsou  5*os  fo<€  f*  uet 

efx.V-'v  '' Ji.fo  ».7iJ  iv  5  6<  4/^  v{^.  »><  '>  9ks 

bnsvc'caoa  ly^i.  ct  ficc^i  wf^r  o  fjKtSi 
rr:r,WrMf'%fC<fiX‘ 

vtinrr  >iev  fnytf.ct  t-jsu  '  f^rma^n^rii  w 

■ptfwv  !i*ir<»  5  i  r 

fnfdi-.v  t  fJi  fobfT  jmJ 

T  wf  ■;f-^ 

•?  s^ttj.  1  fc4t  ftrfnam^.rou 

TV  *34  3  Trt  •^S-.xga  fTSTittC'  -y  'i  1-'  -p  nf  V«  if'l 

tJiijc  ^CJ-J  wrrr  \mm'-  Ait»^ 

X'J  i  it  /;  -r?  r  y  f  ijrrt-'-:  «» v--sux-m  r 

ftcBt4fr,v*fo.-  ct  fofof^  aqyi;  qiar^  fopw 
yv^'^Axr.-t .  Hyt  ^  afotT'^c » i-tr  A-j 

t'irRj4f5<i{6.  «  Ruuiyi  i>cwv»  fir«7*i}>.‘r6  rtJ, 

T  W  li'i 

h:in.f{' vhUtX!<m^f  banS-  ct  -t 

r.uta  ^  mijnf;  CW3  Av&foji-  t  ttut 

t?W}i^£aa/'tvT.-^A.>iSMTl-5'»i  i#‘  C-r.xX^ 
t'cwr  a^aj  osif  fuJ>  iVfo  ^  tn 

i,rv'fi!^S'u^^'^CYifKrntrk'f-xm  m  ff\}xy’^ ' 
«54:%'/nJ;cf  jpp.’n'4t.>ncla.t  (iit&i  iU.  t  ci- 

“.v,  uki.K^i  s  t-  yu  ij/n 

tfrcaatae  avT‘'»'foc  fub^  <cfo  ^  i»  ^  foyte 
'h  Vf  .V.’  'P  W  .Tv««TW  ?  C,03)r6v  f  'fiX 

0ju>ccfu3i?/‘t  ftpp jruu 4rtfo.t‘<w{»oU  an 
7wy*? i  !"'?a-K.5«  ’«  x>-t<riy » ^  -n't 
dJrifrrS.t  <&-jyciatidcai  -aqo^rS  wintinj 
ft  ffTiir*  yp  t»  <ri';'';AafTx  v-f stTist  vXf»  A » Jsj 

rta.  (t  «4m  sTaw»i»  i:«xiS.  <*  ojni  eruaskV 

nwft  Ptrti  iMrltd  hw  firtmlrf  frt\1^  hn 
fi».T*TviY«  tuyJ^ 

ecnoot  f»byftinjl»rodtni.vt  Uplift pc^mfcrft  Oitia 
Vt  ♦.vj  Hflti  KaJeM9i-rri»T«.  »< « ’Trii5‘jy 

fnicftl.  ftfwt*  tpAMfltit  tpfo  ^CHUB  flip 

It'«d’!l^^|.9v'p«^^7iu■»KV•?t^  .Vrw  Ka7«y(«v  tsri 
ffTi.t  fjcthf  »u.  ft  pwiulittfiu  fycrrf 
7»v  >’;•  |&5T<«' 

W  ffn«  ktnxniU  ftxaS  tVi  ^cnu#  t 
f»»  jiwyafjftflw 

liftiJiHi.  tl^nttpomtffrfi  fiKirwa  fr«t^,onu\»  k 
«'vaTri/iw 

^wtfW^-iy/ciTvajf-ttf ■y^'»?5tV*  T»f  ‘V'lJ*  t^J  tfiTtv 

■/D-ati/Ia-Cbar. 


Cratifij.SJ.'irro. 

qrN'pr'Jpio’crci  .!. 
r*  CCC-ass^cOOo 

*u-‘vdn%''iCTii ,  Ten  .4 
anren?  coD^'wccocecco:? 

tcj  i .:  bre  ervifiu  e 
'abyifi  i  '■*€<  fjiirita^i "  dci 
"'fcrcb.jttirbuper  ccs>v'^ 

*T'U^,f.xoc<x:-xc:^<o:\ysi 
‘'iux.^H  :rVt.;  eta.  bt 
vuiitMciis’^jiTccnj  ccc«o 
’t>c‘Tft''tX)n.* : 
KeeiiXCki,vc;a\viXC3c^^^ 
‘’renebns :  '?.o 
veUmuv.  v’X^'^^xco^xb 
'^irerteb:  st 
’jjc?ctc;n.  ^^^^xc•Jc»JCc^» 
'F-icMnuf.  ert^vef^v?'  'j, 
l^manc*  iio/vna-^.vWAv 
^Dxyitcii'^.'kdoii  Ri: 
‘finn.inij;:  m  ‘  W)  rr.c.is-j 
*^;5qi{ir  ittn  ;'’cC^  d} ;  tul?  r 
diqafu  cv>>,\\’c^x\vo,*cw 
^abaqir;i.‘'*:?^t;ar.tc!i-; 
*n.r;!utiten?;t<n.  co.vf<x> 

‘Uib  «cc,\'Ca'sxxc';3Xc 
'firn jtner-,'  ;\L>bi', ''que 
crant'^fuiTr  ccoc\vc:cp? 
*fint\j»fnr.-iru.  ‘  HtfjrJn 

‘Vi  nctiNn  c.V  ViTp: ' 

'}n,i»c'*ul4i  *rcciin;1ij<. 

'  f>t  }<K  vero'v-'ut .  avw; 
'*C‘m^ri:5;eJU*.ir”aquo  q 
Vub\e!>ftnir  'i!i?cccA\') 
'io4;;miiVnit{n;‘'-i  'ppi  • 
rcu'mdtdfc-f  tbetdme 
V'Kt\urM:ui*’n 
rid.^  r  r.Mn;  :coo  -evjrxw 
‘’cd^jrc^-tn'HuT.p'.ivpu 
nV:5ppHV{iHf'in  im.  ‘‘c< 
f  iTef ’boj* 
numd'i.iif/  lirrmu'  -t 
“fern  'b'’rbfv4'C'jc,'n  i 
'f,i:K’tc  rcnK:f< 

"p-  MnjfcnVfiociHWnr- 
cnVtuxMff^.'tjfiiruiVVti 
bic*Tctnd'ire»n,'fip'(»r»r 
Tup*rorr.^  '  H'  ell 
*ifi.*£fpl'Mlit'rcrr.i‘  her 
WNirFf^S^Tvn.'  re  fern  > 
’^nisM  ffc!ni>  <'uV*iJs;nu 
qj  V  Kle/fructa'  hH'-' 
vnu  qaodv};'  ferncMrcm 
‘fmfpcrnfti.T.^Gr  viviic 


ixjnx rrj  K'oftrr  x.^-i 

w  j<jni  iSW^rrrii^s^t-iriJ  XP'''^  ‘’58’'>TO  ’"V  »«?’*' J,«5r7i|i 

>  r  SW)V  T  K r?’  T 

p^il'^rij'ifrtT}  X!t  T  "^82  <”’?  8»i' V  T'.'  ''  ^D2«  >''^’  '*'!2\!2 

i'5':'?H"8:?T'3B’T82*<s"P7e'.'';'  •ni;it>«‘;'x7or2tt",i:^”x::i'J,x;g 

2T’^222,>'7?';>»<ri?^T  i?^222.xT'2?V  VgrT'^Xf^"’*? 

^xjPB3;;'r!Vfri’in  irx*^x"/jo  rrrri  in  -lovn  !r.\iu\>~‘^  mni 

r‘??'7^Sr23’l'r8Al'T''^-?'’'^y‘’2  •’.?■’ Xiwsrixr'ivpx  ’x-tri'".’ 

fr.p  r  H3wy  r7|s3'q3PP,x,V"ix  S' ri'3  rf'p  I  "iTi  inyT^' 

fitnimnur  X'82P7U;'?  ,Tj  T),7!T?r'25'’'3'ilV'8;ATjf?  i'?"*!?' 


‘Zet.H'Jcb.  C<v..  £,i,(.  g'rinM.tii-. 

>  ’  ’  r'r.N*!  "  £3,.. 

>>  pN;>l':pN2'rN’'DT-"'''  ,  'T'” 

-1-1 '  '  '  '  •' 
=•  'D'-’£s-'nni3ci-p'' 

D'n*’}<‘K''v '3':’iC''^"'’P"'l' ■'i;-;')’ 

» pnTr’N'''3’'-iv;K-i'  ar'*,'.  --' 
’’'"•n.Vai’ .■_■  •,  v 
' >  ■i2,n3'i"p--''r'b',*'^N  ■■''.'S' V 
>*”  P'r.Y3V'"!2p''M-''  a'pp’ 

>  >  >  p,nj>'^  PP.-N‘’a'Pp'i  '.I '  1' 

“^pp'Til'X  3'  P"!'p'l’,,V'P''^’ 

» >  > -n- ' '  3  X' ’  R '  3' '.'  e ' '2 '3'’ ' 

>*  a’n^x’prx.i’;*j-_-3ii 

»>*"3S  n'PiPi’pi.'Vp  cx“i'''P'’ 

* f  P  r3”''psim'’p  n, .:  bip  f 

>  ’  pPK'  P'w’ j‘'*’''0'"l\vV"'P'2'':p' 
NPp3ax''N"2';"o'p8'-'pp’-'i' 

>*  □'n^'"PPN’>':3'i.’''D'a'3'''N' 

>3  ij'P"’ '■’P  pi-''  >'■'■' 

>•  >  ’Ti'  ’•■';<P'“’.i,''i3  U'"''  PCX  ' 

> » ’  PCC '  NU:P'pPX"'’N"':pi  '.'p" 
riwC'jC'’  CPr'i''pr’;'' 

;«;pp"' ,1- )’p"’'i3“c’'';''PC'X  'p^ 

Tltwrpxbiit  ■  o.-'^iiiii'lvl'.i!'. 

{.vsBk  !v4»>J*iMraa»-tH'ftn.>'iv-Mrj,  .-tvt'  I’.oi'i’  '*  • 

I'JiNV'vKm  Uv;rntq»iii'rvtn*-'ki»«.jl'.>tri'i‘  f,x<-  r'"  '"  ' 

1' .' {.'in ttHWii.OkJl'ir;  t  foil  1‘':  • :  ''i>i«  Tn:-.’ 
kiV.}’*''bt{’oia<.'fpiintiirH‘uv'imfT M>v'  ,' ;.jn-rrc 

t)ttH<.\t4‘.<.'if4«Vfriv':futiK>Jti<*T'v  »'V(;-.v,e'i  ri. 

*‘Hoc;j  '.Cnff<r«i4irn'cii(lo»Mn-(tiv)rt.;>nc:r riPi  !.a 
t»ncr  i.jat '  r.ivV**{''^‘*^r^4‘m/irii»nfK-:U'!  v:  m’ji 
liii^r.7^ni.ut<i<'»j«itfoln.  rfirnunN'rov,  I  i-'u  r  >•" 

4i'tJi>tf'ipfn  mjmf»rti!rru(t«j. 

»;i.im<'t»tft  «rlut.  A:  tf»uvrfiv  :  f'»i<)2'  xir  t'cei;i>  \ 

a  I W’  It  ff  ■*.  If  AjurctUti't  vfovtr  luU  i.-fo  »(U»:  n  f'.il 
vn(im.T4;»P'nf-K  ■n<'fo-Jt’ri'uuin.  M'  '  ’Miir*«;v' 

vMi5,itiu42  tU-rtf‘Mtf  junen'"  ,' 

nMM.i  tp'f 

iniHc;  h-Tra^iominafu*!'.^  N iN-,.'i»'' •iV.x" »> ‘'‘.'ni'  ,*'''7\”y“ 7' •“>••. ' 
fi,'HMH.\f  jrl'ot»'  w<iOt{»f*i.W.tii«'t‘i«  lfp|*,i'i  2 1 1-'^. 

ivuivfoHr^wtvtvti'tlnu'l'niu'Motinr'k'’  ni'l'ivf*  *-  -<  ."“Vp  JC'*' 

t.n'i,  le 

\3 


V;  N*.'  “ 


S's- 


V'  -*' 

y-s^'v  -"' 

..U;," 


Compiiiteiisiiin  l^oly^lol,  1514:  Hchrcvv,  Viilgiile,  Sc|)l  uaniiH  with 
liiietir  Latin  trtinsl.atioTi,  r;iryiiin  with  Ltitin  trtins- 
lalion  (jJ  25),  (ieiiesis  1  :  1-12 


inter- 


The  Tar  gums  1 1 7 

pression  that  they  did  not  hesitate,  when  they  thought 
it  would  add  clearness  or  conciseness,  to  change  the 
readings  of  the  Hebrew  text  as  they  transformed  it 
into  Syriac  dress.  This  free  handling  of  the  Hebrew 
is  further  modified  by  some  corrections,  scholars  dis¬ 
cover,  made  on  the  basis  of  the  Septuagint,  and 
others  are  colored  by  the  peculiar  beliefs  that  soon 
sprung  up  in  the  Syrian  communities. 

But  notwithstanding  the  variations  due  to  the 
causes  already  enumerated,  the  Syriac  text  possesses 
a  real  value  for  the  determination  of  the  Hebrew  text 
in  the  early  Christian  centuries. 

97.  The  Jews  themselves  should  be  the  best  inter¬ 
preters  of  their  own  Hebrew  text.  From  the  time 
that  their  own  classical  tongue,  represented  in  the  Old 
Testament  Hebrew,  began  to  degenerate,  the  read¬ 
ing  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  synagogues  was  accom¬ 
panied  by  an  interpreter  who  gave  the  sense  in  Ara¬ 
maic,  the  spoken  language  of  the  common  people. 
These  oral  interpretations  gradually  increased  in  im¬ 
portance,  until  somewhere  in  the  early  Christian  cen¬ 
turies  they  were  reduced  to  writing  and  indorsed  by 
the  authority  of  the  rabbis.  Just  when  this  author¬ 
ization  was  granted  we  are  not  certain.  But  these 
Targums,  “interpretations,”  of  some  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  possess  both  textual  and  exegetical  value. 
They  represent  Jewish  translations  or  paraphrases  of 
the  Hebrew  text,  and  thus  in  many  places  indicate 
what  must  have  been  the  true  reading  of  that  text 
when  the  Targum  was  prepared. 


1 1 8  Old  Testament  Material  Summed  Up 

As  in  all  other  versions  indicated  above,  we  must 
guard  against  certain  peculiarities  of  these  Targums. 
They  now  and  then  depart  quite  markedly  from  a 
literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  by  expanding  into’ 
a  paraphrase,  or  by  inserting  words  or  phrases  to 
complete  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  sense.  The 
gains  from  the  Targums  toward  determining  the  He¬ 
brew  text  of  the  early  centuries,  which  is  most  valua¬ 
ble,  are  its  confirmation  of  the  readings  of  other  ver¬ 
sions. 


CHAPTER  XII 


THE  APOCRYPHA 

98.  The  so-called  apocryphal  books  cannot  be 
overlooked  in  any  discussion  of  the  antecedents  of 
the  English  Bible.  They  have  formed  part  of  the 
contents  of  the  English  Bible  from  Coverdale’s 
edition  (1536)  down  through  the  issuance  of  the 
Authorized  Version  (1611).  They  are  also  a  con¬ 
stituent  part  of  the  Rheims  and  Douai  version  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church.  The  completed  edition  of 
Luther’s  Bible  (1534)  likewise  made  use  of  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  apocryphal  books.  We  find  them  em¬ 
bodied  also  in  the  edition  of  the  Vulgate  authorized 
and  indorsed  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  especially 
edited  by  papal  authority  in  1592.  Still  earlier,  they 
are  first  found  in  connection  with  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Alexandrian  version. 
These  peculiar  books,  which  have  come  down  through 
the  ages  in  such  close  companionship  with  those  now 
found  as  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  are  full  of  interest. 
Bible  students  of  to-day  know  too  little  about  them, 
as  they  are  not  bound  up  either  with  the  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion  or  the  American  Revised  Version. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  go  into  a  full  discussion 
of  the  questions  of  the  origin,  character,  and  signifi¬ 
cance  of  these  little  books.  But  some  items  of  each 

119 


120 


The  Apocrypha 

case  will  be  mentioned,  and  a  few  points  made  that 
may  be  helpful  to  those  who  are  seeking  more  light 
on  this  knotty  little  canonical  problem. 

99.  The  name  “Apocrypha”  (in  Greek, 

“hidden,  concealed,”  is  applied  to  certain  books  that 
have  been  incorporated  for  centuries  among  the  so- 
called  canonical  books  in  several  versions  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  seems  to 
have  been  entirely  appropriate,  for  it  was  given  to 
such  works  as  were  prepared  for  certain  sects  or 
companies  of  heretical  believers,  who  carefully  con¬ 
cealed  them  from  the  public.  The  evidence  of  this 
fact  is  seen  in  some  of  the  titles  of  these  sacred  books ; 
for  example,  a  papyrus  of  the  first  century  has  as  its 
title,  “  A  Holy  and  Secret  Book  of  Moses,  called  the 
Eighth  or  Holy.”  So  that  the  term  “  apocryphal  ”  in 
its  original  sense  was  perfectly  honorable,  whereas  in 
its  later  acquired  sense  it  specifies  books  that  have 
been  rejected  by  the  Protestant  churches  as  spurious. 

In  the  early  lists  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  church 
we  find  included  all  the  books  of  the  Septuagint. 
Hence  the  early  significance  of  Apocrypha  did  not  in¬ 
clude  what  it  was  made  to  cover  in  later  times.  Its 
earlier  meaning  covered  such  works  as  the  Book  of 
Jubilees  and  the  Book  of  Enoch.  Jerome  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  to  use  it  as  applicable  to  all  the 
books  not  found  in  the  Jewish  canon.  He  then  classi¬ 
fied  as  apocryphal  all  books  found  in  the  Septuagint 
which  its  translators  did  not  find  in  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
from  which  they  had  prepared  their  version.  In  the 


I2I 


The  Apocryphal  Books 

time  of  the  Reformation  Protestant  churches  adopted 
as  their  Old  Testament  Scriptures  the  books  that  had 
formed  the  Jewish  canon,  and  thus  threw  out  all  other 
books  found  in  the  Vulgate  and  the  Septuagint  ver¬ 
sions.  The  Roman  Catholic  church,  on  the  other 
hand,  declared  the  same  books  to  be  canonical  as  had 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  and  applied  the  word  apocry¬ 
phal  to  books  outside  those  of  the  Vulgate  and  Sep¬ 
tuagint  versions,  which  were  often  included  in  some 
versions.  The  Protestant  churches  designated  the 
latter,  that  is,  those  spurious  books  not  contained  in 
the  list  of  the  Apocrypha,  as  Pseudepigrapha. 

lOO.  The  books  designated  “  apocryphal  ”  by  the 
Protestant  churches  are  those  usually  found  in  the 
Greek  and  Latin,  but  not  in  the  Hebrew  Bibles.  That 
the  reader  may  be  able  to  locate  them  the  following 
list  presents  them  in  their  relations  to  the  Protestant 
canonical  books,  remembering  that  our  English  order 
is  practically  that  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions. 
The  books  of  Chronicles  are  followed  immediately 
by  I  and  2  Esdras  (Ezra-Nehemiah)  ;  Tobit;  Judith; 
Additions  to  Esther,  prefixed  to,  inserted  in,  and 
placed  after  the  canonical  portions  of  the  book  of 
Esther;  after  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Solo¬ 
mon;  Wisdom  of  Jesus,  Son  of  Sirach  (or  Ecclesias- 
ticus)  ;  Baruch,  with  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah;  Story 
of  Susanna,  prefixed  to  Daniel ;  Song  of  the  Three 
Holy  Children,  inserted  between  verses  23  and  24  of 
chapter  3,  and  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  appended  to  chap¬ 
ter  12 ;  I  and  2  Maccabees  follow  Malachi.  In  the 


122 


The  Apocrypha 

Vulgate  these  books  follow  Revelation,  viz. :  Prayer 
of  Manasses ;  3  and  4  Esdras.  All  the  above  except 
the  last  three  are  included  among  the  canonical  books 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  church. 

The  apocryphal  books  of  the  ancient  church,  now 
designated  as  the  “  Pseudepigrapha  ”  by  Protestant 
bodies,  are  very  numerous.  They  cover  a  wide  range 
of  topics  and  reveal  many  literary  peculiarities.  Some 
of  them  are  found  in  the  best  versions,  and  others 
are  extant  only  as  individual  books.  Search  in  Eu¬ 
ropean  libraries  and  old  monasteries  of  the  East  is 
frequently  rewarded  by  the  discovery  of  some  new 
pseudepigraphical  book  or  fragment  of  one.  Direct 
references  and  hints  in  early  ecclesiastical  literature 
still  point  to  others  whose  manuscripts  have  not  yet 
come  to  light. 

loi.  The  books  of  the  Apocrypha  may  be  conve¬ 
niently  classified  according  to  M.  R.  James,  and  de¬ 
scribed  under  the  heads  of  (i)  Narrative  (historical 
and  legendary)  ;  (2)  Prophetic,  and  (3)  Didactic. 
Of  the  Narrative  there  are  (a)  the  historical  and  (b) 
the  legendary. 

(a)  The  Historical  books  are  (i)  i  Maccabees,  a 
part  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  in  the  Maccabean 
period.  The  book  is  extant  only  in  Greek  and  in 
translations  therefrom,  though  it  was  originally  writ¬ 
ten  in  Hebrew.  (2)  2  Maccabees,  claims  to  be  an 
abridgment  of  a  large  five-volume  work  by  Jason  of 
Gyrene.  It  is  extant  in  Greek,  and  is  inferior  in  his¬ 
torical  value  to  I  Maccabees.  It  is  prefaced  by  two 


Legendary  Apocryphal  Books  123 

spurious  letters  to  the  Jews  in  Egypt.  (3)  3  Mac¬ 
cabees,  a  fragmentary  history  of  an  attempt  to  mas¬ 
sacre  the  Jews  under  Ptolemy  Philopator  (217  B.  C.), 
and  their  deliverance.  It  is  found  in  the  Septuagint, 
but  not  in  the  Vulgate,  or  Roman  Catholic  canon. 
(4)  4  Maccabees,  is  extant  in  Greek,  and  is  a  philo¬ 
sophical  document  discussing  the  superiority  of  mind 
over  matter  by  a  concrete  illustration.  It  is  found  in 
some  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint,  but  was  not  part 
of  its  canon.  (5)  i  Esdras  (3  Esdras  in  the  Vul¬ 
gate),  is  extant  in  Greek,  and  includes  a  canonical  re¬ 
casting  of  Ezra-Nehemiah,  to  which  is  appended  a 
legend  known  to  Josephus.  The  Vulgate  embodies 
this  book  in  an  appendix,  and  hence  it  is  not  one  of 
the  canonical  books  of  the  Roman  church. 

(b)  The  Legendary  are:  (i)  Additions  to  Esther; 
in  the  Septuagint  there  are  several  letters,  prayers  and 
visions,  inserted  at  intervals,  to  explain  and  amplify 
the  story  of  Esther.  In  the  Vulgate  these  are  gath¬ 
ered  together  in  an  appendix,  with  an  accompanying 
note,  stating  that  they  are  not  in  the  Hebrew  canon. 
(2)  Additions  to  Daniel  are  found  in  the  Greek  ver¬ 
sions  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  Theodotion.  A  He¬ 
brew  original  of  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children  has 
recently  been  found  by  Dr.  M.  Gaster  in  the  Chron¬ 
icle  of  Jerahmeel.  (3)  Tobit  is  a  romance  of  the 
captivity,  extant  in  Greek  and  Aramaic,  written  not 
later  than  the  first  century  A.  D.  There  are  three 
Greek  and  three  Old  Latin  versions,  besides  Jerome’s 
version.  (4)  Judith  is  a  romance  in  Greek,  reciting 


124 


The  Apocrypha 


how  the  city  of  Bethulia  was  delivered  from  the  As¬ 
syrians  by  the  shrewdness  of  Judith,  a  Jewish  widow. 
It  is  also  one  of  the  books  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
canons. 

102.  (c)  The  Prophetic  are:  (i)  Baruch,  a  book 

ascribed  to  Baruch,  the  amanuensis  of  Jeremiah,  orig¬ 
inally  writen  in  Greek,  probably  after  70  A.  D. ;  is 
found  in  Greek  and  Latin  Bibles.  To  this  is  appended 
as  chapter  6  (2)  The  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  a  letter 
ascribed  to  the  prophet,  which  was  sent  to  the  Jews 
in  Babylon.  (3)  The  Prayer  of  Manasses  purports 
to  be  the  prayer  of  Manasseh  while  in  prison  (2 
Chron.  33)  ;  it  is  found  in  many  Greek  manuscripts 
appended  to  the  Psalms ;  in  the  Vulgate  it  follows  the 
New  Testament,  as  do  3  and  4  Esdras,  and  is  not  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  canon.  (4)  4  Esdras,  called 
2  Esdras  in  the  Authorized  Version,  but  3  Esdras 
when  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  counted  as  one  book, 
as  in  the  Greek.  The  original  Greek  of  this  book  is 
lost.  But  it  is  found  in  Latin,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Ethio- 
pic  and  Armenian.  It  was  relegated  by  the  Roman 
church  to  its  appendix  as  not  canonical. 

(d)  The  Didactic  are :  (i)  Wisdom  of  Jesus,  Son  of 
Sirach  (commonly  called  Ecclesiasticus)  is  found  in 
the  Greek  Bible,  was  written  by  a  Palestinian  Jew, 
and  was  translated  from  a  Hebrew  original.  The 
Syriac  version  of  this  book  was  likewise  made  from 
the  Hebrew.  Some  portions  of  the  Hebrew  text  have 
been  recently  discovered.  (2)  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
is  found  in  the  Greek  Bible,  and  was  probably  written 


?iA^/-  I’^n ) 
a^SD5t.VKi’i 

\  \‘jhB7^yTD<JO 

jfipw  i^^iA  IS 

-^*TPpdm^js 

* ,  .f  T*'  t 

trprt  Wjj^V  ^ 
i^Vv«ftiiiinJtts  * 


^  ^tu/  f  >a<|3*5plKfl>f  J 
*TS^w<i 

’Vtp  ^“>^<^3  D’SXJ 
•?yv<  ^ D:53n/<1 
7Tsj^t3ioyirvi^ 

‘»Vjpji/;3lsr  r/< 
r«  iJ'IO’l 

T^VViw?  vinrmp^  * 
:ji{so>»7ni7T 
jMftnL/jin  V/cV  nm 
Vac*hs">  ?*n‘;T 

r^nV^my  rVrrin 
•  Wtt^»V/cujT  f 


mm  r  v 


•rTpiT 


dVu/V 


"/3i  Tin^T  nih 


Hebrew  fragment  of  Ecclesiasticus.  Taylor-Schechter  collection  of  the 
University  Library,  Cambridge,  England 
Ecclesiasticus  51  :  6c-i2 


% 


% 


■  . .  K  -• 


i 


V.'-^  '■^ ' 


fcw>'  ■ 


125 


PseudepigrapJlical  Books 

by  an  Alexandrian  Jew  in  the  first  century,  if  we  are 
to  pass  on  the  literary  character  and  content  of  that 
wonderfully  clever  book  of  Jewish  philosophy. 

103.  The  above-named  Protestant  apocryphal 
books  are  those  most  familiar  to  us  from  their  pres¬ 
ence  in  many  old  English  editions  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  and  in  large  family  Bibles.  But  besides 
these  there  is  a  continually  growing  collection  of 
pseudepigraphical  books  which  Bible  students  must 
take  account  of.  At  least  one  of  these,  the  Book 
of  Enoch,  is  quoted  in  Jude  (14b),  and  others  are 
quoted  in  some  of  the  church  fathers  as  if  authentic 
and  authoritative. 

There  are  various  classifications  of  these  books,  but 
that  of  M.  R.  James  (in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica)  is 
comprehensive,  and  followed  for  the  main  part  here. 
This  literature  is  (i)  Legendary  or  Haggadic  Nar¬ 
rative;  (2)  Apocalyptic;  (3)  Poetical;  (4)  Didactic. 

i)  The  Legendary:  (i)  The  Testament  of  Adam, 
extant  in  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac,  Arabic  and  Ethiopic ; 
(2)  The  Book  of  Jubilees  (or  Apocalypse  of  Moses), 
a  commentary  on  Genesis,  extant  in  Ethiopic;  (3) 
Testaments  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  found  in 
Greek,  Slavonic,  and  Roumanian ;  (4)  Apocalypse  of 
Abraham,  extant  in  Slavonic,  from  the  Greek;  (5) 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  extant  in  Greek 
and  Latin;  (6)  Life  of  Aseneth  (wife  of  Joseph), 
extant  in  Greek,  Syriac  and  Latin;  (7)  Testament  of 
Job,  extant  in  Greek;  (8)  Testament  of  Solomon, 
extant  in  Greek;  (9)  Book  of  Noah,  a  fragment  found 


126 


The  Apocrypha 

in  the  Book  of  Enoch;  (lo)  Penitence  of  Jannes  and 
Jambres,  extant  only  in  Latin  and  Anglo-Saxon  frag¬ 
ments. 

2)  Apocalyptic:  (i)  Book  of  Enoch,  originally 
written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  extant  in  Greek,  Ethi- 
opic  and  Latin;  (2)  Secrets  of  Enoch,  extant  in  Sla¬ 
vonic  only;  (3)  Sibylline  Oracles,  extant  in  Greek  and 
Latin ;  (4)  Assumption  of  Moses,  extant  in  Latin, 
quoted  in  Jude;  (5)  four  Apocalypses  of  Baruch,  ex¬ 
tant  in  Greek,  Slavonic,  Ethiopic  and  Syriac ;  (6)  The 
Rest  of  the  Words  of  Baruch,  or  Paralipomena  of 
Jeremiah,  extant  in  Greek  and  Ethiopic;  (7)  Prophecy 
of  Jeremiah,  attached  to  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  in 
Ethiopic  manuscripts  ;  (8)  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  extant 
in  its  entirety  only  in  Ethiopic,  but  fragments  exist  in 
Greek,  Latin  and  Slavonic ;  (9)  Apocalypse  of  Elijah, 
extant  in  Coptic;  (10)  Apocalypse  of  Zephaniah,  ex¬ 
tant  in  Coptic;  (ii)  A  Revelation  of  Moses,  extant 
in  Hebrew;  (12)  An  Apocalypse  of  Esdras,  extant  in 
Syriac ;  an  Ethiopic  manuscript  of  a  book  by  the  same 
name  is  in  the  British  Museum ;  there  are  several  other 
books  of  less  note  under  this  classification  that  are 
either  quoted  or  referred  to  in  various  ancient  au¬ 
thors. 

3)  Poetical:  (i)  Psalms  of  Solomon,  eighteen 
psalms  in  Greek  that  were  once  translated  from  He¬ 
brew;  (2)  Additions  to  the  Psalter:  Psalm  151  in 
the  Greek ;  three  apocryphal  psalms  in  Syriac— all 
probably  of  Jewish  origin. 

4)  Didactic:  (i)  Magical  Books  of  Moses,  ex- 


127 


Reasons  for  the  Apocrypha 

tant  in  papyri  found  in  Egypt;  (2)  The  Story  of 
Achiacharus,  the  cup-bearer,  steward,  signet-keeper 
and  overseer  of  accounts  to  Esarhaddon  (Tobit 
1 :  2if.). 

The  above  list,  though  it  does  not  contain  all 
known  pseudepigraphical  books,  is  being  increased 
almost  annually  by  the  discovery  of  other  books 
quoted  and  referred  to  by  early  ecclesiastical  writers, 
These  works  are  becoming  more  and  more  essential 
for  Bible  students,  because  they  give  many  reflections 
of  the  pious  mind  of  Jew  and  Christian  in  the  early 
centuries  of  Christianity. 

104.  The  books  of  our  Revised  Version  are  iden¬ 
tical  with  those  that  made  up  the  ancient  Hebrew 
Bible.  All  the  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  were 
produced  between  about  250  B.  C.  and  somewhere  in 
the  early  Christian  centuries.  They  were  written  by 
persons  who  doubtless  had  a  pious  turn  of  mind,  but 
who  wished  to  palm  off  on  a  credulous  public,  or 
credulous  church,  works  which  were  intended  to  pro¬ 
mote  some  religious  or  philosophical  idea.  To  get 
their  works  adopted  and  indorsed  they  gave  them 
some  title  that  carried  the  name  of  a  glorious  patri¬ 
arch  or  personage  in  early  Jewish  history.  Such 
works  appealed  more  readily  to  the  non-Palestinian 
Jew,  as  we  see  in  the  translation  and  adoption  of  sev¬ 
eral  non-Jewish  documents  in  the  Alexandrian  or  Sep^ 
tuagint  translation.  We  have  seen  how  these  same 
books  have  been  carried  into  the  numerous  editions 
of  the  Septuagint,  into  the  Vulgate,  and  into  several 


128 


The  Apocrypha 

other  versions  of  later  date.  The  church  fathers  now 
and  then  quoted  from  these  extra-canonical  books, 
and  the  Roman  church  formally  adopted  many  of 
them  as  part  of  their  biblical  canon.  Somehow  or 
other  the  spread  of  learning,  and  the  quickening  of  a 
spiritual  life  in  reformation  times  cut  down  the  bibli¬ 
cal  canon  of  the  Protestant  churches  to  the  limits  of 
the  ancient  Hebrew  canon.  This  determination  won 
its  way  until  to-day  we  find  no  apocryphal  book  either  ’ 
in  the  Revised  Version  or  the  American  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion. 

In  1892,  the  Rev.  C.  J.  Ball  issued  the  Variorum 
Apocrypha,  the  Authorized  Version  with  variant 
readings,  after  the  manner  of  the  Variorum  Teachers’ 
Bible.  The  Revised  Version  of  the  Apocrypha 
appeared  in  1895. 

105.  Why  were  the  apocryphal  books  not  received 
into  the  biblical  canon  of  the  Old  Testament?  What 
constitutes  the  real  difiference  between  the  two 
classes  of  literature?  Who  decided  what  should  be 
Bible  and  what  should  not  be  Bible  ?  How  many  times 
these  questions  have  been  asked  and  remained  unan¬ 
swered  ! 

Answers  to  these  questions  are  not  easy  to  find.  In 
the  first  place,  no  man  and  no  body  of  men,  so  far  as 
recorded,  formally  decided  what  should  be  the  fixed 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  There  seemed  to  be  a 
kind  of  unanimity  of  opinion,  doubtless  based  on  com¬ 
mon  grounds,  why  such  and  such  a  book  should  be 
valid  for  Scripture  and  another  should  not.  West- 


129 


Origin  of  the  Canon 

cott,  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  says  rightly,  p. 
346f. :  “  The  collection  of  sacred  books  was  brought 
about  gradually,  spontaneously,  silently.”  “The  judg¬ 
ment  appeared  as  a  natural  manifestation  of  the  life 
of  the  Christian  body,  and  not  as  a  logical  consequence 
of  definite  principles.” 

Scholars  have  been  searching  far  and  wide  for  a 
statement  of  the  reasons  inquired  after.  Some  of  the 
reasons  produced  for  the  acceptance  of  any  book  into 
the  canon  have  been,  (a)  its  antiquity,  it  must  be 
known  to  be  ancient;  (b)  its  authenticity,  it  must 
have  been  regarded  as  authentic  by  those  of  early 
days ;  (c)  its  authorship,  each  book  must  be  connected 
with  some  great  name;  (d)  its  purpose,  each  book 
must  present  some  distinct  phase  in  religious  thought 
and  life;  (e)  its  temper,  each  book  must  be  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  already  accepted  biblical  books;  (f)  its 
religious  tone,  each  book  must  make  a  religious  im¬ 
pression  that  will  be  a  determining  element  in  its  loca¬ 
tion. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  were  certainly  many  rea¬ 
sons  why  a  book  was  not  accepted  as  canonical.  Some 
of  them,  as  seen  in  a  study  of  the  temper  of  scholars 
in  the  early  Christian  centuries  are :  That  book  was 
rejected  (a)  whose  ethical  teachings  were  contrary 
to  those  of  the  accepted  books;  (b)  which  contained 
manifest  errors  of  history  and  geography;  (c)  whose 
contents  embodied  silly,  ridiculous,  or  trifling  state¬ 
ments  or  stories;  (d)  which  was  largely  compiled  or 
made  up  of  imitations  of  other  writings;  (e)  which 


130  The  Apocrypha 

lacked  the  spiritual  element;  (f)  which  was  not  ac¬ 
cepted  by  the  early  Christians  or  Jews;  (g)  which 
appeared  after  the  closing  of  the  canon,  and  whose 
internal  and  external  evidence  locates  it  after  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  Christian  era.  There  are  many  state¬ 
ments  in  rabbinical  writings  that  limit  the  canon  to  the 
regular  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  reject,  as  did 
the  early  Syriac  version,  every  book  not  contained 
therein.  Thus  in  this  day  we  estimate  that  the  par¬ 
tition  between  the  two  classes  of  literature  was  spe¬ 
cifically  set  up  and  maintained. 


Part  II.  The  New  Testament 


CHAPTER  XIII 

WRITING  AND  MANUSCRIPTS  IN  GENERAL 

io6.  The  story  of  early  Old  Testament  versions 
is  a  long  one,  for  it  deals  with  documents  in  many 
languages  that  stretch  over  a  large  area  of  time. 
The  composition,  canonization,  and  early  transla¬ 
tions  of  the  Old  Testament  are  veiled  in  the  mists 
of  history.  The  meagerness  of  the  manuscripts, 
the  policy  pursued  in  the  multiplication  of  versions, 
and  their  value  for  critical  study,  arc  problems  which 
confront  every  thorough  student  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  The  present  stage  of  Old  Testament  study  is 
still  far  from  satisfactory  to  those  who  are  desirous 
of  securing  a  good  text,  built  on  an  abundance  of 
early  manuscript  authority. 

On  turning  to  the  New  Testament,  however,  we 
find  an  opposite  condition  of  things.  There  is  an 
abundance  of  manuscripts,  several  of  them  reaching 
to  the  fourth  Christian  century.  They  have  been  de¬ 
posited  in  many  of  the  largest  libraries  of  Europe, 
and  are  most  valuable  testimony.  Besides  these  nu¬ 
merous  witnesses,  the  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
are  several  centuries  nearer  the  original  than  are  those 
of  the  Old  Testament;  or,  in  other  words,  the  space 


132  Writing  and  Marius cripts  in  General 

of  time  between  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the 
New  Testament  books  and  the  earliest  translations 
of  those  documents,  is  very  much  shorter  than  between 
similar  documents  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  fact 
gives  the  versions  of  the  New  Testament  much  larger 
value  than  can  be  credited  to  those  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  On  the  other  hand,  the  larger  number  of  early 
and  valuable  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
rather  discounts  the  comparative  value  of  the  ver¬ 
sions. 

107.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  come  down 
to  us  in  Greek,  most  if  not  all  of  them  written  in 
the  first  century.  Most  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the 
earliest  of  the  books,  were  written  as  letters  to  the 
churches  which  he  had  founded  and  fostered,  and 
not  one  of  them  was  by  him  intended  to  be  preserved 
as  a  permanent  part  of  a  collection  of  sacred  books. 
Indeed,  Paul  does  not  seem  to  have  given  any  direc¬ 
tions  regarding  his  letters,  except  that  occasionally  he 
requested  that  they  should  be  read  before  a  church  or 
interchanged  with  that  sent  to  some  other  church  (cf. 
Col.  4:  16).  They  preserve  the  epistolary  form  even 
when,  as  in  the  case  of  Romans,  the  treatment  is  more 
elaborate  and  systematic  than  usual  with  him.  The 
individuality  of  the  writer  stands  out  in  greater 
boldness,  and  the  familiar  handling  of  themes  in  such 
direct  address,  gives  a  certain  personal  touch  and 
interest  not  found  in  formal  literary  documents. 

These  letters  of  Paul  are  our  earliest  records  of 
the  progress  and  expansion  of  Christianity.  Paul’s 


Character  of  New  Testament  Writings  133 

intimate  relationship  with  the  early  churches,  and  his 
daily  burden  of  soul  for  them  (cf.  2  Cor.  ii;  28) 
give  them  a  special  value.  From  hints  and  direct 
statements  in  these  letters  Paul  must  have  carried  on 
an  extensive  correspondence  with  his  churches  (2 
Thess.  3:  17;  Phil.  3:  18).  He  received  letters  or 
messages  from  his  churches  (i  Cor.  16:  3;  7:  i)  and 
sent  to  them  other  letters  (cf.  2  Cor.  10:  10;  i  Cor. 
5:  8)  besides  those  preserved  to  us  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament.  The  so-called  Catholic  Epistles,  James,  I 
and  2  Peter,  i,  2  and  3  John,  and  Jude  have  more  of 
the  form  of  literary  epistles.  Some  of  them  were 
evidently  intended,  if  not  for  general  Christian  read¬ 
ing,  at  least  for  large  numbers  of  persons. 

The  Gospels  are  the  written  reports  of  the  facts 
known  or  gathered  by  their  authors  concerning  the 
life  of  Jesus  on  earth.  They  used  written  records 
in  their  compilations,  as  direct  discourse  is  introduced 
as  if  it  were  the  identical  words  of  the  speakers. 
John’s  Gospel  stands  quite  alone,  and  presents  a 
phase  of  the  life  of  Jesus  distinct  from  the  first  three 
— the  Synoptics.  Luke’s  narrative  in  the  Acts  is  a 
setting  forth  in  their  order  of  events  connected  with 
the  beginnings  of  the  church  and  stretching  to  the 
arrival  of  Paul  at  Rome.  Of  all  these  the  Gospels 
and  the  Acts  seem  to  have  been  the  only  books  of 
the  New  Testament  that  were  obviously  records  in¬ 
tended  to  be  of  permanent  and  historical  value. 

108.  After  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
written  they  were  scattered  all  over  the  Roman  em- 


1 34  Writing  and  Manuscripts  m  General 

pire.  The  Christians  everywhere  took  care  of  them, 
copied  and  multiplied  them  in  the  century  immedi¬ 
ately  following  their  production.  Marcion,  who  was 
a  devout  teacher  during  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius 
(138-161  A.  D.),  makes  appeal  to  a  rule  of  faith  which 
consisted  of  “  the  Gospel  ”  and  ‘‘  the  Apostolicon.” 
This  latter  is  known  to  have  contained  ten  epistles  of 
Paul,  which  were  recognized  by  Marcion  as  authori¬ 
tative.  Soon  after  this  date  other  writers,  especially 
of  the  church  fathers,  quote  and  refer  to  various 
books  of  the  New  Testament. as  if  they  constituted  an 
authoritative  collection  of  sacred  documents. 

But  we  do  not  possess  one  of  the  original  manu¬ 
scripts  either  of  Paul’s  letters  or  of  any  other  one  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  They  were  doubt¬ 
less  multiplied  by  Christians  who  copied  them  pri¬ 
vately,  and  by  slaves,  professional  scribes  and 
monks  in  many  places  in  the  Christianized  world. 
Scholars  such  as  Origen,  Eusebius  and  Jerome  greatly 
stimulated  biblical  learning,  and  caused  the  multipli¬ 
cation  and  preservation  of  its  sacred  manuscripts. 
That  sacred  calling  was  later  confined  almost  exclu¬ 
sively  to  monasteries,  of  which  there  were  hundreds 
in  the  Orient.  The  profession  of  scribe  was  so 
revered  that  a  writer  of  the  sacred  books  was  ex¬ 
empted  from  working  in  the  gardens  of  a  monastery, 
lest  the  skill  of  his  pen  be  marred  by  injury  to  his 
hands. 

109.  Since  these  original  manuscripts  have  been 
lost,  how  shall  we  proceed  to  recover  their  contents? 


135 


Bases  of  the  True  Text 

The  process  will  be  substantially  that  followed  in  re¬ 
storing  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  (Chapter  II). 
In  this  case,  however,  we  shall  not  be  obliged  to  em¬ 
ploy  such  a  wide  range  of  matter.  Here  we  shall 
examine  the  earliest  extant  manuscripts  of  the  Greek, 
the  versions  which  were  translated  directly  from  the 
Greek,  and  the  quotations  in  the  writings  of  the  church 
fathers  and  others.  The  earliest  extant  Greek  manu¬ 
scripts  date  from  the  fourth  century  (not  more  than 
three  centuries  after  the  writing  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  books)  down  to  the  invention  of  printing  in  the 
fifteenth  century.  In  fact,  a  few  were  copied  after  the 
printer  began  his  work.  The  versions  began  to  be 
made  in  the  second  century,  and  continued  to  multi¬ 
ply  until  the  tenth.  Their  evidence,  however,  in  each 
case  depends  largely  on  the  anticiuity  of  the  manu¬ 
scripts  still  extant  of  such  version.  The  use  of  the 
New  Testament  made  by  the  church  fathers  either  in 
quoting  from  the  original  Greek  or  from  one  of  the 
versions,  is  valual)le  evidence  for  the  reading  of  that 
text  at  the  given  date.  On  the  other  hand,  the  care¬ 
lessness  that  some  of  the  church  fathers  manifested 
in  their  quotations  or  references  to  current  versions 
often  diminishes  their  value  for  the  textual  critic. 
The  diligent  student  of  the  text  will,  however,  grad¬ 
ually  discover  the  relative  value  of  these  ancient  wit¬ 
nesses,  and  accord  them  their  meed  of  regard. 

no.  The  known  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  produced  prior  to  the  invention  of  printing,  now 
number  several  thousands.  They  are  found  in  publiq 


136  Writing  and  Manuscripts  in  General 

and  private  libraries  and  collections  in  almost  every 
civilized  country.  They  are  divided  according  to  the 
character  of  the  writing  into  two  classes;  (i)  Uncials, 
that  is,  those  written  in  capital  letters,  and  (2)  Cur¬ 
sives,  those  written  in  a  running  hand.  The  former 
include  for  the  most  part  the  oldest  manuscripts  down 
to  the  ninth  century,  and  the  latter  those  written  from 
the  ninth  to  the  fifteenth  century.  Besides  the  New 
Testament  manuscripts,  properly  so-called,  there 
are  over  four  hundred  Lectionaries,  or  service  books, 
in  which  are  found  selections  from  some  parts  of  the 
New  Testament  for  use  in  church  services. 

The  oldest  uncials  are  written  on  expensive  and 
durable  vellum  or  parchment ;  on  leaves  about  quarto 
or  folio  size,  usually  in  two  and  occasionally  in  three 
or  four  columns  on  each  page.  They  have  as  a  rule 
no  space  between  the  words,  no  accents,  and  few 
pausal  marks.  There  are  no  marks  to  indicate  the 
end  of  sentences,  except  paragraph  extensions.  There 
are  certain  words  that  admit  of  an  abbreviation,  such 
being  indicated  by  a  superlinear  stroke.  The  follow¬ 
ing  in  English  letters  will  illustrate  about  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  an  early  uncial  manuscript  (from  John  i: 
1-4)  : 

INTHEBEGINNING^ASTHEWORDAND  T  ^ 

W  O  R  DWASWITHGDANDTHEWORDWASGD 
THESAMEWASINTHEBE  GINNINGWITH 
G  D  A  L  L  THINGSWEREMADETHROUGHHIM 
ANDWTTHOUTHIMWAS  NOTANYTHIN  G 
MADETHATHATHBEENMADEINHIM  WA  S 

eifeandthelifewastheeightofme  N 


f. 

ii 


Wj4;IC*»  *;CMfc*4l*»#' 
4Uje»  »«feM»^Ki*  fcw*, 
I  »tt^ 

^  ^  w  t#?tiift<s?f* 

*,  ►*!  f  V'l  MV  Hdih  "f  »v 


,  -  -  ^tii^-fO  Ki^*  ■‘hj^ 

C  A.  Y  H  tJt*l>** 
i.  Alt ^rrer  f  amIi^mmiy 
k4C  J  *  A  A  An««  VM*^ 

r.«-Vy  tiiw'»  occiJy^  '  ^’* 

n  ».<^,»  I  M  Xl»l'M^IC-*.».*j«  ^ 

t(  k  k  j  «  HKkl  fcti»«?l  kf  k« 
ha*c  nerlo^r»*»t;irtfck 
^'otfcYtM  H^  •*  <5  >*t  «*• 

i  Tcry  ri  r  ti  j;~r  <3  »«»  H- 
OY  “K  *1  * '*"’ 

(i...,  i.  auMkipf '5*,, 

^©A*u3c*^'» 

I  IT  A  MOT  >*CMMUj>#%*irfTy 
i  'j-  t  i<  A.  »  I  A  A  M  <  iJ  <:  A.  M  M 
AlfcjM 

*,  I  Jk.O  M*r  *IC  oy  r  ^  AV4  A4* 
-T'0<' A  A  A  A  n  M  C  Y  M  A  T*'** 

Tor  •‘fkf  r  M  A  AriOAf'i 
M  #  *“*V%*1’  »j*' YA«  A  7.1- 
rt  n  9 1  If  » *•  *^0 » ♦  ■ 

vTc*Y*^N®T®j*’'^'*  r*''* 

M  A  T'  f  M  •  0  V  M  l>  M  r 
M  O  Q I  C  #Vr  M  H  #  » *  •  M  A» 

^  »«A&>C  X«  V4  M  Jfe^i  A«‘  4»M 
iJT^kJIfklToyC-^tOYC 
(f  »kMA^ICTOIir<fl  i»*,.- 

»iA<AA 

y  A  M'rriYnroc  lUMO^A-j 

-roY'f 

H  ►!  M.  1 1  U*<'  tJ  Y  y  •  M  A  A  A* 

u  AT0C’«^  C'I' M  AO  1.M' 


V  f  rA^HAiAt*f4>AJ»A»Y  Ht 

If  A 'r  Ik  fc:  r  i  V  #  a?  c  A  oy.  A 

^rtntpcc^Y** 

H  AlAKCMIA-rMf  AtitAl 
ocy  WM  A  AoS  vfAAlf  A^ 
6yi,.i»kO%*^Ci*^  rOA* 

Kowacima 

'YU>'T^  M'  t<%  »  H«|C*  -t 

'rHcynt '  k 

toy  f4cVlrAr*ro*tf’T*J 

no  A  A<v  A4  4^kAc  ^  -tyiw* 

TacIiYM  rUfAy  I 

t  M  AA.no  AAn:»>  f 
’W.^iOMCVAftA  fO-f  *f  AO  A  ^ 
rrt  f  M  u>  Y  CM  t  v’  x 
ay  MM  aV  ntxo»^if  oc^ot^ 

now  Ay  'I  u  Y  f»  fuCT'c>»A** 
^nrt  MM  Ai  royc  yit>Y<3, 

icf  AMA4'»CT0  r€AOk  1^ 
iCA'i'Art  ayMCM  ^ 

^ytUJfM  TAAIOMMA  rv 

XY'r*r>-i>'-Kf*rir'r;pcc-- 

roM  Acyolkyr* 

K  a'a  Y  *4  k4  A  <Vlt)X  »«  A 
it  I'l  MCflAAAlAi  AIA*«>« 

►  in.  *4*  m  I  A4  H  X  »l  A  A  AAy 

f  l*T  O  M  ♦  MOM  6'T  '  • 

A  A  r  *  M  I  I  1  ^  r  X  >  k  iuic 
CH»44  POM>fM**V  *  amX  ha 
I  ♦  I  M  lA  4,  »•  H  TA  •  A40»Y*' 

AA>f  •«4lAi  Ml  •  IMf  •f 
S  I  A  M  A  >1  I  t «  •  »4  ft  I  •  I  A  » •  I ».  I* 

►  AAft.M  .1.4  I  I  l*'0|  j 
ft  ftJII*  (M^l*  I  I  *'  iVKA.  . 
AyW  J*  tf  Ml  T  0'4 

A  fta  4  Y*r«UM  K‘<  I  T  AIM  '4# 

..  K  4  A  A  ftf  •’!  I  IA*T 

•t'm  ri4Y''^r*  *  i  I'l  ‘ 

AY  ft4A»4t*A^  *  • 

u  a^CT'iM^Y  '%* 


MA  V''yA*3A  Y*^^f  **  ftAAA4f« 

A4  M  4  *- 

Vft<  Mkilftf  OCUan  Aft'CMM 

AO  t  1^  «  AT  OM-f  px- 
M*  MOIT'M  M  A  Y'tXMi’urk" 

M  AA4  V  X^AMOr 

A  nOA<J  »  M  C«  •  Ya  OXAAl^ 

K  A  ft  ft  u  C  f  t  4rJ  A  n  O  H  Y  ^*J7 

A*4fTOC‘  ’/*' 

^OM  TCcVmMAIACOmU'* 

-T^aTy  **  *  AOvUCM^*  H 
-  V  M  C  M  oy  *^^y**^ 

*.A  A  A  An«  inAMCO  ATA 

4r#Yn  V  at  hcaicyvY^*** 

nt  f  ta  c 

c  M  n  A  M  uy  r  r  1 4  A4  H  Aft  A* 
Apy  AftTt  Ctonao  roftftiy 
«?y'A*AAA-rM<4>AM4f4«k  4. 

'Y'm  C  A  A  M  4>  a'i  AC  C  Y  N  ICl  4 

mowtcca  AyToycnp^*  ‘ 

n  ACA  MCyftlc'lAMClftft  40 

ft  /  1L>  flUft M  4* Ip  r» I O M  T ^ 

•  V  «  I AV  <AI  Xc  r*0  A  4|Ca 
AyM  ftjtfftjoM  TO  4*  Y  A  ft  r* 

A I OM  H  M  liiftAA  fta'rbiciftfA 
AY  vir'MQvrdcT  »>i  aa  rA 
Ay  44  M  «  MOft^^  ftj  f>ic6a« 
-roy  AMxftMOci^^Y  nay  , 

4i'*1*Y  <-b  4  (JU  C  4  M  T  A  »l  1»H 
►.4  A*rii^rftt*ft4  A  me  TX4IM 
ricTowM Ayi  aVaitom 

«4>u>T»  c  4*<)MT*OY4yAr 

1^  A  I  a  Y  T'ftft  C  A  oy  H  CTt>Y 
xyo5*CTiMdi»iu'-<Ti>, 
oyft  Ar^AYToyf/-'** 

^V-  ^  .'  Sjl  CM  AAA  ATijN  IM 


i 

■>  ^ 
'  *■* 

^  '.I 

1 

•J 


> 


A'i  -1  OVCA_'  tOyAt* 
Y  V4«i)  ft4  A  I  A TmOT*!  rtt  64| 
riUAft44  4  r IT  ft-foyc 
AA  M^Xe  lOC  J  AAft«  4^** 

•  ft* ;r A'irKArA  «  AiAftAflCir 
ripbc<i  u.irM  MuMTftlc 


‘y 

i-i 


Codex  Vaticanus  (li;  120^  121) 


I'uiirth  Century 


■  ’  'i 


<> 


/ 


^ 


,-•  ••'■:■  JV  4^,^  -■•  ■■  t- 

-;</■■•  '4.V  ■  .  •Ky\''  ■-  ' 

’  'i  ■‘J  - 


-/ 


c. 


/,;?  ■  - 


-  j”  \ 


-A  ly.'i'i 


:y-m. 


•'  -■>j5fe(  ’- 


■w>., 


Uncial  Manuscripts  .  137 

This  method  of  writing  gave  to  subsequent  scribes 
and  copyists  considerable  liberty  as  to  the  divisions  of 
words  and  sentences.  In  this  very  quotation  there 
happens  to  be  a  case  of  this  kind.  In  the  margin  of 
the  Revised  Version  we  find :  “  Or,  was  not  anything 
made.  That  which  hath  been  made  was  life  in  him ; 
and  the  life,  &c.^’  The  text’s  reading  puts  the  period 
after  “that  hath  been  made.”  This  illustrates  how 
the  copyist,  as  soon  as  he  should  begin  to  depart  from 
this  endless-chain  method  of  writing,  could,  by  sepa¬ 
rating  his  words  at  different  places,  produce  a  different 
sense  from  the  original.  Just  this  thing  occurred 
in  numerous  places  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  was 
perpetuated  until  we  have  a  multitude  of  variant  read¬ 
ings  collated  from  the  different  groups  of  manuscripts. 
Another  class  of  variants  consisted  of  expansions  of 
the  text  in  order  to  explain  certain  events  mentioned ; 
particularly  is  this  frequent  in  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts. 

Again,  it  is  evident  that  the  same  kinds  of  errors 
already  enumerated  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament 
(Chapter  III)  were  operative  in  producing  variant 
readings  for  the  Greek  manuscripts.  Different  schools 
of  believers,  located  in  different  sections  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  world,  likewise  perpetuated  manuscripts  that  be¬ 
came  tinged  by  their  marginal  notes  which  contained 
either  their  doctrinal  tenets,  their  corrections  or  their 
deliberate  alterations.  These  items  crept  into  the 
text,  and  thus  spread  the  error.  The  amount  of  such 
doctrinal  variation,  however,  was  relatively  small. 


138  Writing  and  Manuscripts  in  General 

These  and  other  circumstances  fostered  a  tendency 
to  multiply  variants,  and  thus  complicate  the  prob¬ 
lem  of  restoring  the  original  text. 

III.  No  manuscript  earlier  than  the  ninth  century 
carries  a  date.  The  time  of  the  writing  of  any  par¬ 
ticular  undated  document  is  determined  in  one  or 
more  of  several  ways.  Some  of  the  means  of  fixing 
the  date  are  (i)  the  material  on  which  a  document 
is  written,  (2)  the  form  of  the  letters,  (3)  the  style 
of  writing,  (4)  the  use  or  absence  of  the  Ammonian 
sections  of  the  Gospels,  (5)  the  Eusebian  references 
to  the  sections  of  Ammonius,  after  340  A.  D.  (the 
year  of  Eusebius’  death),  (6)  the  system  of  Euthalius 
in  the  Acts  and  Epistles. 

Apparently  the  earliest  extant  attempt  in  Greek 
manuscripts  to  break  up  the  text  into  paragraphs  is 
found  in  the  Vatican  manuscript.  Tatian,  however, 
in  his  Diatessaron  seems  to  have  divided  the  Gospels 
into  larger  sections  or  ‘‘  titles,”  to  whose  numerical 
designation  was  appended  a  summary  of  contents, 
either  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  or  at  the  top  or 
bottom  of  the  pages  or  both. 

Ammonius  of  Alexandria,  about  220  A.  D.,  adopted 
a  novel  method  of  harmonizing  the  Gospels.  He 
took  IMatthew  as  his  standard,  and  marked  ofif  therein 
335  sections ;  in  Mark  he  noted  236;  in  Luke  342,  and 
in  John  232.  These  sections  were  marked  by  Greek 
letters  with  a  fixed  numerical  value.  To  make  prac¬ 
tical  his  plan,  ten  lists  were  made,  to  which  another 
letter  written  under  the  designation  of  the  section 


Cursive  Manuscripts  139 

referred.  In  these  lists  all  the  parallel  passages  were 
classified.  The  first  list  contained  all  the  passages 
common  to  the  four  Gospels;  the  second,  those  com¬ 
mon  to  the  first  three  of  them ;  the  third,  those  com¬ 
mon  to  Matthew,  Luke  and  John ;  the  fourth,  those 
common  to  Matthew,  Mark  and  John;  the  fifth  to  the 
ninth  lists,  those  common  to  different  twos ;  and  the 
tenth,  those  found  in  one  only.  Such  designations 
introduced  into  manuscripts  set  one  stake  for  the  age 
of  that  manuscript. 

Eusebius  adopted  certain  modifications  of  the  Am- 
monian  method.  The  use  of  these  devices  in  a  manu¬ 
script  would  place  its  production  not  earlier  than  the 
date  of  Eusebius’  death  (340  A.  D.).  In  458  A.  D. 
Euthalius  of  Alexandria  introduced  into  Acts  and 
the  Pauline  and  General  epistles  certain  divisions 
which  he  called  stichoi.  These  were  indicated  by  a 
mark  set  at  every  fiftieth  line.  Though  they  were  arbi¬ 
trary  divisions  they  served  as  guides  and  checks  for 
the  copyist.  The  same  term  stichoi  was  later  applied  to 
another  division,  called  also  comma  or  colon,  which 
was  made  according  to  the  sense. 

These  devices,  however,  were  not  universally 
adopted,  nor  are  they  present  in  any  of  our  modern 
Bibles.  Their  use,  however,  for  a  considerable  time, 
supplies  us  with  a  useful  key  for  ascertaining  the  date 
of  some  of  the  uncial  manuscripts.  Nestle  catalogued 
127  such  manuscripts  in  1901. 

1 1 2.  The  cursive  manuscripts  were  produced  from 
the  ninth  to  the  sixteenth  century.  They  number 


140  Writmg  a7id  Manuscripts  in  General 

• 

thousands,  every  great  library  possessing  one  or  more, 
and  copies  being  found  even  in  some  small  public  libra¬ 
ries.  Some  of  these  are  only  second  in  value  to 
the  uncials,  but  many  of  them  are  relatively  unim¬ 
portant.  They  seem  to  have  been  written  in  great 
numbers  by  the  monks  in  the  middle  ages.  Every 
monastery,  and  there  were  hundreds  of  them,  had  its 
scribe  or  scribes,  whose  chief  business  was  the  copy¬ 
ing  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  So  many  of  these  copies 
have  been  carefully  preserved  that  we  have  on  our 
catalogues  3,702  (Nestle  in  1901).  Only  a  small  pro¬ 
portion  of  them  has  been  fully  collated.  They  are 
designated  by  numerals  in  distinction  from  the  capital 
letters  that  mark  uncials.  Some  of  the  most  valuable 
of  these  cursives  will  be  indicated  in  a  subsequent 
chapter.  The  accompanying  cut  is  from  the  first 
page  of  a  beautiful  manuscript  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
now  preserved  in  the  library  of  the  University  of 
Chicago. 


l^rrrpornt^c^ 


i^^o cT  'y^p  <^3  t^ojcr  lu  •yij  ’  \^(iu 
•  MOU  oLiop. .  a:u^ax^‘ 


^'  ffyfx^'X^y'lJLst.'u^.  iJLto', 

(urrou. 


tf.v  I 

ijj  ^TOp  cu ptxjAj  -  a^ctfij 


First  page  of  a  manuscript  of  tlie  ('iosi)els  in  tlie  T.ihrary  of  tlie  Universilv 
ot  Chicago.  About  A.D.  1500.  Matthew  i  ;  i-^a 


'U-  - 


-  -• 


•  '  r-  > 


CHAPTER  XIV 


SOME  GREAT  NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS 

1 13.  Uncial  Greek  manuscripts  are  assigned  to 
dates  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  to  the 
ninth.  At  the  present  time  only  one  hundred  and 
twelve  such  documents  are  known ;  and  of  that  num¬ 
ber  two  only  contain  the  entire  New  Testament.  It 
seems  that  before  the  collection  of  all  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  manuscripts  into  a  single  volume,  there  were 
four  groups  of  those  books:  (i)  The  Gospels;  (2) 
the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles;  (3)  the  Pauline  Epis¬ 
tles,  and  (4)  the  Apocalypse.  A  large  number  of  the 
manuscripts  now  reflect  this  method  of  grouping.  The 
uncial  manuscripts  are  designated  by  the  capital  let¬ 
ters  of  the  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew  alphabets.  Stu¬ 
dents  of  the  footnotes  of  the  Variorum  Teachers’ 
Bible  are  familiar  with  such  alphabetical  designations. 
Many  manuscripts,  both  uncial  and  cursive,  have 
names  as  well  as  symbols. 

Cursive  manuscripts  are  dated  from  the  ninth  to 
the  sixteenth  centuries.  Of  these  there  are  about  3,500 
known  and  catalogued,  not  by  letters,  but  by  numerals. 
The  group  system  noted  above  is  observed  in  this 
method  of  enumeration,  that  is,  each  group  has  its 
own  system  of  successive  numbers.  They  are  indi¬ 
cated  in  lists  of  manuscripts  as  Evan,  (the  Gospels)  ; 

141 


142  Great  New  Testame7it  Manuscripts 

Act.  (the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles)  ;  Paul,  (the 
Pauline  epistles)  ;  and  Apoc.  (the  Apocalypse).  Re¬ 
garding  the  Lectionaries,  we  find  these  abbreviations : 
Evst.  (the  Lectionary  of  the  Gospels),  and  Apost. 
(the  Lectionary  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles).  The 
cursives,  as  a  rule,  occupy  a  small  place  in  the  con¬ 
siderations  of  the  textual  critic.  Their  evidence  is 
mainly  valuable  when  the  sum  total  of  testimony  is 
collected,  coming  into  prominence  only  where  two 
great  authorities  disagree  on  a  reading. 

1 14.  Among  the  most  fascinating  stories  in  bibli¬ 
cal  lore  are  those  connected  with  the  discovery,  trans¬ 
mission,  and  preservation  of  early  manuscripts.  Their 
production  was  sometimes  a  matter  of  imperial  edict, 
as  when  Constantine  the  Great  ordered  from  Eusebius, 
the  famed  historian  and  Bible  scholar  of  the  fourth 
century,  for  the  churches  of  Constantinople,  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  fifty  manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  to  be  written 
“  on  artificially  wrought  skins  by  skilful  calligraph- 
ists.”  The  persecutions  and  wars  of  the  middle  ages 
destroyed  such  documents  in  large  numbers.  Fire, 
flood  and  fanaticism  combined  to  wipe  out  these  per¬ 
ishable  treasures  of  Christendom.  But  some  were 
sheltered  in  out-of-the-way  fastnesses,  in  monasteries 
upon  the  mountainside,  in  the  sacred  precincts  of 
carefully  guarded  churches,  and  in  the  palaces  of 
kings.  They  were  given  as  presents,  they  were  bor¬ 
rowed,  bought,  and  stolen.  Their  intrinsic  value  was 
almost  always  underestimated,  and  they  were  sub¬ 
jected  to  inexcusable  risks  of  being  hopelessly  lost. 


Tischendorf  s  Discovery  143 

Fortunately,  however,  there  were  some  haunts  un¬ 
reached  by  the  demons  of  destruction,  wherein  these 
treasures  were  preserved.  Large-hearted  benefactors 
and  long-headed  Christian  statesmen  secured  many  of 
these  documents  and  deposited  them  where  they  are 
safe,  and  can  be  available  for  scholars  through  all 
time.  In  the  succeeding  sections  a  few  only  of  these 
invaluable  manuscripts  will  be  described,  and  these, 
too,  practically  in  the  order  in  which  they  appear  in 
the  catalogues  of  manuscripts. 

1 15.  Codex  Sinaiticus  (S,  generally  designated,  X) 
was  in  the  monastery  at  Mt.  Sinai,  but  is  now 
in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  The  story 
of  its  discovery  and  acquisition  by  Constantine  Tisch- 
endorf  of  Leipsic  is  one  of  the  most  fascinating  in 
the  history  of  biblical  manuscripts.  Tischendorf  set 
out  in  1844  to  make  a  tour  of  the  Orient,  particularly 
of  monasteries,  in  search  of  biblical  manuscripts.  One 
of  the  out-of-the-way  places  visited  by  him  was  the 
monastery  of  St.  Catharine,  located  at  the  base  of  Mt. 
Sinai.  The  monks  graciously  showed  him  their  an¬ 
cient  library.  In  glancing  around  he  noticed  in  a 
basket,  evidently  for  waste  paper,  a  considerable  quan¬ 
tity  of  leaves  on  which  were  written  Greek  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  a  more  ancient  character  than  any  he  had  ever 
seen.  A  brief  examination  showed  that  they  were 
parts  of  the  Bible.  In  this  batch  he  found  forty-three 
leaves,  and  was  told  by  the  librarian  that  two  basket¬ 
fuls  of  such  leaves  had  already  been  used  to  kindle 
the  fire.  He  was  readily  given  permission  to  carry 


144  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

away  what  he  had  found,  but  was  not  allowed  to  see 
the  remainder  of  the  book  from  which  these  had  been 
taken.  Tischendorf  told  the  monks  their  value,  and 
then  left  for  Europe.  He  presented  the  forty-three 
leaves  to  King  Frederic  Augustus  of  Saxony,  who 
deposited  them  in  the  court  library  at  Leipsic.  Tisch¬ 
endorf  published  their  contents  (1846)  under  the 
title  of  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus.  These  leaves 
contained  parts  of  i  Chronicles  and  Jeremiah,  with 
Nehemiah  and  Esther  complete. 

In  1853,  Tischendorf  returned  to  the  monastery  at 
Mt.  Sinai,  but  without  securing  any  further  manu¬ 
scripts.  With  unquenchable  zeal  he  made  a  third  trip 
to  the  same  place  in  1859,  with  the  sanction  and  sup¬ 
port  of  Czar  Alexander  II.  At  first  he  was  met  with 
the  same  kind  of  refusal  that  defeated  him  in  1853. 
Finally  (on  February  4),  a  few  days  before  he  left 
the  monastery,  he  showed  the  steward  his  recently 
published  edition  of  the  Septuagint.  At  this  the  offi¬ 
cial  said  that  he  also  had  a  copy  of  the  Septuagint. 
Thus  Tischendorf  was  led  to  the  steward’s  room, 
where  a  bundle  of  loose  leaves  of  parchment  wrapped 
in  a  cloth  were  unfolded  and  set  before  him.  There 
was  the  treasure  he  had  so  long  sought  for!  The 
dream  of  days,  months  and  years  materialized  now 
before  his  eyes.  With  pent-up  feelings  he  coldly  ex¬ 
amined  the  leaves,  and  soon  saw  that  it  contained  not 
only  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  entire.  He  was  permitted  to  examine  it  in  his 
own  room  that  night.  He  says :  “  In  the  presence 


Convent  of  St.  Catharine,  Mount  Sinai.  Where  T-schendorf  found  Codex 

Sinaiticjs  (§  115; 


i 


/ 


■i 


) 


m 


S^.  Petersburg' s  Treasure 


145 


of  the  found  treasure  it  was  not  possible  for  me  to 
sleep.”  He  discovered  in  the  mass  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  including  the  poetical  books  entire,  the 
New  Testament  entire,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and 
part  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  He  saw  that  if  he 
could  not  get  possession  of  the  original  he  must  copy 
the  whole  document. 

1 16.  Just  at  this  point  the  influence  of  the  Czar 
proved  to  be  of  immense  advantage.  Tischendorf 
showed  the  monks  how  gracious  an  act  it  would  be  to 
present  this  precious  biblical  document  to  the  supreme 
head  of  the  Greek  Church.  He  was  so  far  successful  as 
to  secure  a  “  temporary  loan  ”  of  the  document.  It 
was  carried  by  Bedouin  on  a  camel’s  back  from  Mi. 
Sinai  to  Cairo,  Egypt.  At  this  place  he,  with  the 
help  of  two  of  his  countrymen,  copied  the  110,000 
lines  of  the  Codex,  and  noted  the  more  than  12,000 
changes  by  later  hands.  In  October  of  the  same  year 
(1859)  he  was  permitted  to  carry  it  to  Europe  as  a 
“  conditional  present  ”  to  the  Czar,  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  publication.  Tischendorf,  while  on  his  way 
to  Russia,  showed  it  to  several  royal  heads  of  Europe, 
including  the  Emperor  of  Austria  and  the  kings  of 
Saxony  and  Prussia.  In  November  he  was  permitted 
to  lay  it  before  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias  and  the 
Holy  Synod  at  St.  Petersburg.  Tischendorf  himself 
was  then  permitted  to  make  use  of  it  in  Lcipsic  in  the 
preparation  of  his  full  edition  of  the  Codex.  Finally 
it  was  returned  (in  1869)  to  the  Imperial  Library  in 
St.  Petersburg,  where,  in  return  for  imperial  presents 


146  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

to  the  monks  at  Mt.  Sinai,  it  found  a  permanent  home, 
and  may  be  seen  to-day  as  the  most  precious  biblical 
treasure  of  the  Russian  Government. 

The  text  of  this  great  manuscript  was  printed  at 
Leipsic,  and  published  in  four  folio  volumes  at  St. 
Petersburg  at  the  cost  of  Czar  Alexander  II,  as  a 
celebration  of  the  first  millennium  of  the  Russian  Em¬ 
pire.  The  types  were  especially  cast  to  bring  out 
practically  a  photographic  imitation  of  the  original 
manuscript.  The  New  Testament  text,  with  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
was  issued  in  a  separate  volume  in  Leipsic  (in  1863) 
in  smaller  type,  in  four  columns,  and  an  octavo  edi¬ 
tion  in  ordinary  type  (in  1865). 

1 17.  This  Sinaitic  Codex  consists  of  346^2  leaves 
of  vellum,  made  from  the  finest  and  best  quality  of 
antelope  skins.  The  leaves  are  13^2  inches  wide  by 
14J4  inches  high,  written  in  large  uncials,  with  four 
columns  of  forty-eight  lines  each.  It  is  the  nearest 
complete,  and  the  oldest,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Vatican  manuscript,  among  all  the  ancient  Greek 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  assigned 
by  Tischendorf  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
or  about  the  time  of  the  death  of  Eusebius,  340  A.  D. 
Part  of  the  evidence  for  this  assignment  is  the  pres¬ 
ence  in  the  margin  of  the  Gospels  of  the  marks  of  the 
so-called  “  Eusebian  sections,”  “  written  in  a  hand 
evidently  contemporaneous  with  the  text.”  Tischen¬ 
dorf  thought  it  entirely  possible  that  this  might  have 
been  one  of  the  fifty  copies  which  Constantine  had 


Codex  Alexandrinus  {A) — History  147 

ordered  for  the  churches  of  Constantinople  in  331 
A.  D.  and  that  it  might  have  been  sent  by  the  Em¬ 
peror  Justinian  to  the  convent  at  Mt.  Sinai,  which  he 
founded. 

As  almost  every  ancient  manuscript,  the  Sinaitic 
Codex  has  been  corrected  and  modified  by  several 
later  writers.  (See  cut  facing  p.  16.) 

This  codex,  in  addition  to  being  one  of  the  most 
ancient,  is  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  most  valuable 
of  New  Testament  manuscripts.  It  often  agrees  with 
the  Vatican  Codex  as  against  the  readings  of  many 
later  manuscripts.  A  few  of  the  most  notable  read¬ 
ings  in  which  this  manuscript  and  the  Vatican  Codex 
agree  are  in  John  i :  18,  where  these  codices  read 
“  God  only  begotten,”  for  the  usual  “  only  begotten 
son;”  Acts  20:  28,  “church  of  God”  for  the  usual 
“church  of  the  Lord;”  the  omission  of  Mark  16:  9- 
20;  the  omission  of  John  7 ;  53  to  8 :  ii,  the  account  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  Sometimes  it  is  in 
agreement  with  the  Old  Latin  version.  In  other  pas¬ 
sages  it  supports  the  readings  of  other  texts,  thus 
proving  its  independence  as  an  authority.  Its  great 
importance  will  be  recognized  at  once  by  any  one  who 
makes  use  of  the  variant  readings  printed  in  the  New 
Testament  in  the  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible. 

1 18.  Codex  Alexandrinus  (A)  is  the  name  given 
to  the  greatest  biblical  treasure  of  the  British  Mu¬ 
seum.  So  much  of  its  history  as  we  know  is  not  so 
romantic  as  that  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex.  This  manu¬ 
script  was  offered  (in  1624)  by  Patriarch  Cyril  Lucar, 


1 48  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

of  Constantinople,  to  Sir  Thomas  Roe,  British  Am^ 
bassador  to  Turkey,  to  be  presented  to  King  James  1. 
This  sovereign  having  died  before  it  reached  Eng¬ 
land,  it  was  formally  presented  to  Charles  I  (in 
1627).  It  remained  in  the  royal  library  until  that 
was  made  a  gift  to  the  National  Library  in  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Museum.  Visitors  to  the  manuscript  room  to-day 
may  see  the  New  Testament  volume  open  under 
glass. 

The  previous  history  of  this  manuscript  is  slightly 
known.  Patriarch  Cyril  Lucar  carried  it  to  Con¬ 
stantinople  from  Alexandria.  A  preliminary  note  to 
the  manuscript,  written  in  Arabic,  and  signed  by 
“  Athanasius  the  humble  ’’  (thought  to  be  Patriarch 
Athanasius  III,  whose  death  occurred  in  1308),  claims 
that  the  manuscript  was  presented  to  the  official  eccle¬ 
siastical  cell  of  that  town.  A  Latin  note  dates  the 
gift  in  1098.  Cyril  Lucar  stated  that  it  was  written 
by  Theda  the  martyr,  a  noble  lady  of  Egypt,  just 
before  the  Council  of  Nicea  (325).  These  statements, 
however,  are  only  traditional.  The  fact  that  the  doc¬ 
ument  has  attached  to  it  some  of  the  work  of  Euse¬ 
bius  and  Athanasius  (who  died  376)  would  locate  it 
probably  in  the  fifth  century.  The  style  of  writing 
seems  at  least  to  be  more  elaborate  and  ornamental 
than  that  of  the  Sinaitic  or  Vatican  Codex. 

1 19.  Codex  Alexandrinus  is  written  on  776  leaves, 
each  ioLJ  inches  wide  by  12^  inches  high,  and  carry¬ 
ing  two  columns  of  uncial  writing  (whereas  the 
Sinaitic  carries  four).  It  contains  the  Old  Testa- 


■V,  1  o  V  ro v*- J  fe  I  c » ■<  > 


•I-^IVOVCMXVI-U  roK/itrMitrr'ov*” 
•r<.ii  v<-i’+«vc*i-!  f  ^Tl » e«  I  o  5  M  Kc 
Xr  «•'•■»  i>-r  «OVKe*  I  TC  t-ev^iC-r-r 
,»  t  V'  T » »  M  *"<  *- V '  ‘  ■  f '  ’'T 

•r  V  r  *  ‘  »<*-'  »^* '  1-'  r  "  X>YVl^>Y^»''-) 

K  xt  vl^i  ■> « w  1 !  K* ,v|»'rY- f 

s  t  O  >M  to  »  »<•'  *V<11  KC-  M  U  x<  1 *000 

Kxixy 

t'oy  OO-  Ytl  It  I  rO»^Y<  ttt'tt'^'CC  t 

't-f  t  t->zuy  I » n  o  >-«  I  f  I'y  ti  > « >'  t't,  1 1  »v»” 

•t  xt v<.> V't  •  >  1 1 » >  I  n  c> V’tio  "<«» ' 

'  I '  xy"«*'YC<  'rx4  XYt-4  I  n<  t 
'  •  ti'T'Yiy’t  ’  tt^.xcrro.xiti  >M  «>»•<-»»>•> 
'c‘« 'O-yo  t'C.oc*,Krs'<,->Of-<<>xiYi  t-'Y 

-•  Y»OY'l'‘■■'Y<.^^'  KxiXYtt  JKO't-tf  » 

'  H-,  t  P  t  < <-'  s  Y»  *  f-t  OXt»  »  Yt  et  »  n  Pt  >. 

■Vy  *  '  Of  l-t't'txft’to  Y100X«’.vt-x 

-tXMt  Hyt~f  XVY* PYY'XKOVIJ t  »  I  t'Ytl >t  • 

•  ^'oxt tx t  1 1 n Ytoit Yi i-xx- 

K-iC  t  lO'  (  1 1'  Xct  M  C  M'l  xx  rri  «  >v»  X  I  V 
XU 'ft  >  K  xxtc  t  It  I  xP-VYIY’Y 
XM'flOl  V 1 1  »'X)n  Yxc*  x«J».>M  x',  I » )y 

XX^  XT'fXH  ti  M  l  'XXX/t  xY'l-IXt-l  MUKp... 
ox  ft  XIY'IM  X  r  I  'I  Kxi  X<1 11.H,IXY^ 

,  'fttf'xt'i  •  1 1  fOix;xit iXMXj-'rvMt».-., 
XM  VI"  Y  I  XT  in  1  I  I  1  POCOXM  X  f  Yin 
tjj  tYj'll  I  XXT  X  p-i  T  X  I 1  W>t;<>vi  I  V  1  11  I  T 
r  OV>  t  c  j'KTKf  1 1 1 1  n>.  »i  » I  vf 

I  ixi;xxx  ( i<  ixxT  jx  r  IT  vt 
KXk'Ct  ii  ixxTx[>T’rxx->Y'  >  f’ttt  •.>>r<xi . 

)  TXXXti;  TT<,>T  IT  I  XllxXTIITMl  I  I  IXT, 
XTTTt?Ct< 'rOY<>  YOYX‘XT/1  v|*  I 'V  r  T*  I 

xxx'orxi  in  I  n)<^  tx;c  i<i  'ttT'ifv  i  <i 

£t:  (XYI  O  t  <  K.xioi  xtt ' » t  I'tti-t.' vv 

<.•^f<fOYt)vx^^Y1^:r  I  kxk)  Kxtf  x*4»> 

OXCIC’ C  1 1  IXl  » I  1 1) t  I  I  I  p  «  I  >  i< t  I  1  XI 

Kx n,* I xxxTn^f TOT, TOY* ot,^  ioyot 

»  I  KT:  I  KXI  t';XtLT  I  l<0  Ti  I  I  XT  I  I  1.x  #>tt-  'A 
fr  I  XI'O  1  I  ITT  JO  l-'.iJX'lf  TT'fO  nv  X.  I 
OV' 1 1  lO  f  I  o  IT  K'xiOOMO.turn  lTt> 
XX|  lT)o  I  nxoo  t  ITXitV  '  Tl  >XV'  I  <  >•» 
OY'  I  >  t  lO  VXl  |<K  I  TTOTTK 

K  *<  Xt  .ATTII  I  XI  VI  >f  I  IO<;  M  'v  .  I<l  «  I  V 
M  "V  ^ '*t'|  'f:  .s\'  I  X  J-VC'  V I  I  c>  I  ^ » t>  kkmh... 

■  -s  i\%i  .»  ^  ’v  ^ 


i:; 


f 

I 


ft 


O- 


J-;  V p  V rc>.  I  ( tx  c’ ■  i  K" 

Vi  -  x?  I  f  I  vxt  1 

I  A.  I  4'l 'OOo  It'IJitllKOi 
^  M-^Oi-V-M.vrv  i*»  II  I  w  1 1  OCi 
'I'll  Mi'TM  Ci  I  !<<.  >VVa'  VI  li-  ?  I  »  I  j 

|<>x|  ►.4  f  I  1 1 1  l^'X'  >  A  I  V  I  n>r^ 
.V I  u  )  f  j  >x  V I’ » viv'C 1 1*». 

*)  t  vpvoV* Kxn  ix|' vi\'vvTW 
^V*OV  f  OV*  1  POi.:  r4  wi  n.  >c‘ 

O  X  |»  I  I  fxi  V » vr4  O'l  ■i<i:v  f  *  ♦  »<  At.'. 

ix’  I  1 1’  [■  r  *  •  vf  x>v»'* 

'i‘,vc:c.:  MX  VI  lOO)  A  i<.vovi  ^ 

V»  I  r  JO  VVKt.>  V40M.VI  I  C  >'l  V>V'I  I  p'  ‘i 
|<  -V  I  r  iv  M  C  rcUT<t><.^<.4  Iv  VjT  *  AOVV* 

<  t  »0<.'.M'IXTV  M  T  I  1<  VI  I  I  I  I  M  »*p'  * 

<><>1  -vv  Vf  *  r  » OlV  v^./i  c'  I  I  v.»  I  %  rx^ 

I  f  t  \.vi  Vi  I >k4c: r  *  V  V  VI  i  vc'VO 
fC.Vl  vV*  '*  ic^.vri  M  I  I  vrvi  I  I  »  I 

triiVixi»K/lC’‘4»wivi  ‘xoi'i  HI  x>  j 
VO  VY"  I  x^v'  ^  V  *  ^  'C-f*  f  \>vi  leciVjj 

I  M  VK  VC>tl>0  I  I  KOVi'-A  I'OV  II 

1 1 1  VO.  t  ixy* '» f  1 1  v'p't  I V I  I  f  I  x‘ 

■  I'l  l  lOV  vt>  I  I  1  V  XhJX>1v'>;  »  *  Av  )  vrxioiol 
I  l<00  Vf  C^M  O*  Al  I  li.>  V4  0V«->l'*y;;J 

:  K  vii>x*4.| 

*f  •  I  V  JM  I  X>(*  5  AO»  I  o  I  I'*.' AY  I  ‘>v»  I 
»  M  -VK<  M  V  I  i  IL>  v<.  'v;  I  ic  v<  I  p  vt- V€X.* 

X  A  V  V  K/1  K^OOi  1 1  I  VI  t  I'M  VI  n,»K  vsniit 
'I  I  %  C'  <.>'1  I  Pci  VI  '<  I  >  1*1  |<  V  »  VI  I  I  ►  icrjo*  * 
irn  ivl  VtVXii n.jvvS'oUtiYK^^'t^! 
c>K4  o  r  lo  >•  JO  r  J  I  1 1 VI  v.vv  m  <»  V’»o“ . 
jc'  «A.  I  I  c>  I  1  Y  I  f  I  '  •  p  AC'  V<'/ 

i'  I  MU’* 


P  X'X'  «  H  V  J  JO.  rxo  K4  t:TxK>  I  J  or 
v>'',  ■  I  I  rxi<.>  f  I  V  vr  jc><*  !• 


o 


t-'OTXi'  '  ■<  '  *  pAX-'N'i^  I  AC^  MVtr'f' 

I  I  I  I  I  V  I  V  XX  I  1  1  lO'l  ‘I  -  t  pM 
-VM  f.  Vf  K.  /  C'V-^  I 

11  If 

f  4 

I  o  ic’mV 

j4  I  r  M  pj* 

..  . 


I  1 1  r  I 

M  I!  V  .V  M  f . 
ivvix  VI  p'l  r- 
X<  .l-CM  I  I  I  Vp 


I  VY‘  l4t>AM»A<  11  lO 
VY'  •  ‘  -v  I  p i:  I  r  4 

r  It  I  f  cMt'<''j’  ‘  <'•<*'  ay  '  ' 

I|II|’<1U'  IHlVVVC*VC\fV*-4 

Y  i<  o  K<.>  VA  I  to  »  I  r  i  V  I  vv  A  |-  I  x» 

A  U  *  V  V  I  ic  >V'  O.  V  I  I  I  T  C  t  )  I  V  p  I  C  Mt 
»  I  I’OC'VA’AC'KVIl*  ll>V.1vMp* 
t  "  I -o  M  K  V  VVI  It' VI  in  ^IIVAp».YV^‘ 
Cl  >  A/1  C  f  J  M 

I  >.■  I  1  i<  r  J  V  M 
|<  AC*  I  <  •  » •* 


III  IC  I  »  c.ipci 
\  C‘  1  I  V  >^C-  I  vf  t't 

•  j  '  ►  'Oc'nv 


I  I  CM 


.V^ 

% 


i 


J 


Codex  Alexandriiii-s  (A).  Fifth  CeiiHiry  iiS-Tiy) 
I  Jolin  5  ;  y  to  2  John  13 


Codex  Alexandrinus  (A) — Contents  149 

ment  and  the  New  Testament,  except  the  following 
passages,  which  are  lost :  Matthew  i :  i  to  25 :  6;  John 
6:  50  to  8:  52,  and  2  Corinthians  4:  13  to  12:  6.  It 
contains  also  at  the  end  the  Greek  Epistle  of  Clement 
of  Rome,  of  which  one  leaf  is  lost,  and  a  fragment 
only  of  the  second  Epistle. 

The  New  Testament  portion  of  this  codex  was 
published  in  uncial  type  by  C.  G.  Woide  (London, 
1786),  and  by  B.  H.  Cowper  in  common  Greek  type 
(London,  i860).  The  trustees  of  the  British  Mu¬ 
seum  issued  the  whole  manuscript  in  a  magnificent 
photographic  facsimile  in  1879-1883,  under  the  edi¬ 
torial  oversight  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  prin¬ 
cipal  librarian  of  the  Museum. 

This  was  the  first  uncial  manuscript  that  was  used 
by  biblical  scholars.  It  stands  about  third  or  fourth 
in  importance  among  the  great  uncials.  In  the  Gos¬ 
pels  it  is  thought  to  occupy  a  peculiar  position,  that 
of  a  revised  text  that  was  most  circulated  in  the 
fourth  century,  whose  readings  are  more  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  Authorized  than  the  Revised  Version. 
In  the  remainder  of  the  New  Testament  it  stands 
next  to  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  codices,  except  in 
the  case  of  the  Apocalypse,  where  it  is  pre-eminent. 
It  is  provided  with  the  Eusebian  sections  (§iii), 
but  not  with  those  of  Euthalius,  hence  it  is  located 
before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  Its  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  Vulgate  in  several  respects  led  Dr. 
Hort  to  infer  that  Jerome  made  considerable  use  of 
a  text  related  to  A. 


150  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

120.  Codex  Vaticanus  (B)  is  a  manuscript  of  the 
Greek  Bible  now  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library 
at  Rome.  It  was  brought  to  Rome  by  Pope  Nicholas 
V  in  1448.  It  was  entered  on  the  first  catalogue  of 
the  Vatican  Library  in  1475.  earlier  history  is 
mere  conjecture.  Its  real  character  and  value 
were  unknown  for  centuries  because  it  was  not  ac¬ 
cessible  to  scholars.  The  Roman  church  guarded  it 
so  closely  that  no  Protestant  scholar  of  ability  was 
allowed  to  study  it  for  any  adequate  length  of  time 
until  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  This 
codex  (B)  was  first  made  known  in  1533,  when  Sep¬ 
ulveda  called  the  attention  of  Erasmus  to  it.  In 
1669,  Bartolocci,  librarian  of  the  Vatican,  made  a 
collection  of  some  of  its  variant  readings,  which  re¬ 
mained  unpublished.  Abbate  Mico  collated  it  for 
Richard  Bentley  in  1720  (published  in  1799)  ;  and 
Andrew  Birch,  of  Copenhagen,  in  1781  (published 
in  1788,  1798,  1801).  Napoleon  took  this  treasure 
to  Paris,  where  Hug  carefully  examined  it  in  1809, 
and  was  the  first  to  make  known  its  great  value  and 
supreme  importance  (1810).  In  1815,  it  was  restored 
to  Rome,  and  became  practically  inaccessible  to 
scholars.  Tischendorf  in  1843,  after  several  months’ 
delay,  was  permitted  to  look  at  it  for  six  hours.  In 
1844,  de  Muralt  was  allowed  nine  hours  to  examine  it. 
In  1845,  English  scholar  Tregelles,  even  with  Car¬ 
dinal  Wiseman’s  introduction,  was  not  allowed  to  copy 
a  word.  His  pockets  were  searched  and  all  writing 
material  taken  from  him.  If  he  looked  too  intently 


Codex  Vaticanus  {E) — Contents  15 1 

at  any  passage  the  two  attendants  would  snatch  the 
volume  from  him.  Other  scholars  who  had  traveled 
far,  and  were  thoroughly  competent  to  estimate  its 
value,  suffered  the  same  disappointments  in  their 
efforts  to  examine  it. 

In  the  meantime.  Cardinal  Angelo  Mai  printed 
(Rome,  1828-38)  this  manuscript,  but  it  was  not 
published  until  1857  (in  five  volumes).  The  inac¬ 
curacies  of  the  edition  discounted  its  value  from  the 
first.  In  1866,  Tischendorf  made  a  third  attempt  to 
see  it,  this  time  applying  for  leave  to  edit  the  docu¬ 
ment.  He  secured  permission  to  study  it  under  the 
supervision  of  C.  Vercellone,  for  three  hours  a  day. 
By  the  end  of  the  eighth  day  he  had,  contrary  to  the 
conditions  on  which  he  was  to  use  the  manuscript, 
copied  out  bodily  twenty  pages.  His  permission  was 
revoked,  but  upon  entreaty  he  was  given  six  more 
days.  As  a  consequence  of  this  opportunity, 
Tischendorf  was  able,  in  1867,  to  publish,  up  to  that 
time,  the  best  edition  of  the  text.  Vercellone  and  his 
successors  published  a  very  complete  edition  in  six 
folio  volumes  (Rome,  1868-81).  But  the  best  edition 
of  all  was  a  photographic  facsimile  of  the  entire  work, 
issued  in  1889-90,  by  which  the  manuscript  itself 
is  now  made  accessible  to  the  scholars  of  the  world. 

121.  Codex  Vaticanus  (B)  was  written  in  uncials 
on  fine  vellum,  of  three  columns  (of  forty-two  lines 
each)  to  a  page  10  inches  wide  by  iol4  inches  high. 
The  character  of  the  writing  is  plain  and  simple,  such 
as  leads  scholars  to  locate  this  manuscript  in  the  first 


152  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

half  of  the  fourth  century.  It  contains  no  enlarged 
letters,  no  pauses,  no  divisions  into  chapters  or  sec¬ 
tions.  Tischendorf  thought  that  the  scribe  of  the 
New  Testament  was  the  same  one  who  wrote  a  part 
of  Codex  Sinaiticus.  This  supposed  identity  of  one 
of  the  scribes  is  evidence  of  contemporary  character. 
There  are  corrections  by  several  hands,  some  of  which 
are  of  real  value. 

This  codex  originally  contained  the  whole  Greek 
Bible.  In  its  present  state,  after  all  the  ravages  of 
time  and  use,  it  lacks  Genesis  i ;  i  to  46 :  28 ;  Psalms 
106-138;  all  of  Hebrews  following  chapter  9:4;  the 
Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse. 

But  there  are  some  marked  differences  between  the 
two  great  manuscripts  (S  and  B),  just  described. 
These  consist  in  the  character  of  the  corrections 
found  in  the  manuscript  and  the  notable  difference  in 
the  order  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  (in 
Codex  Sinaiticus,  Paul’s  Epistles  precede  the  Acts, 
and  Hebrews  is  found  between  2  Thessalonians  and 
I  Timothy;  in  Codex  Vaticanus  the  Catholic  Epistles 
are  between  the  Acts  and  Paul’s  Epistles,  and  the 
Hebrews  precedes  the  Pastoral  Epistles). 

Most  New  Testament  textual  critics  agree  that  B 
is,  upon  the  whole,  the  best  and  oldest  of  the  known 
manuscripts,  but  it  must  not  be  given  absolute  au¬ 
thority  over  all  others.  Westcott  and  Hort  made 
large  use  of  it  in  their  text  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  fact,  both  the  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican  codices  until 
very  recent  times  have  not  been  accorded  their  full 


153 


Codex  Ephrcem  (C) 

meed  of  authority.  The  Alexandrian  codex  had  so 
long  held  the  field  almost  alone,  that  only  the  strong¬ 
est  of  arguments  could  win  for  these  new  documents 
in  the  field  of  New  Testament  criticism  their  proper 
places.  B  gives  us,  as  does  S,  “the  simplest,  short¬ 
est  and  concisest  text.”  The  charge  that  many  im¬ 
portant  words  are  omitted  is  imaginary,  say  West- 
cott  and  Hort  (p.  557).  If  B  and  S  agree  there  is 
usually  strong  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  a  read¬ 
ing;  if  it  is  supported  by  ante-Nicene  testimony  it  is 
conclusive.  Such  concurrent  testimony  gives  us  the 
most  ancient  readings,  that  may  be  traced  to  within 
a  century  of  the  time  when  the  original  autographs 
were  penned. 

122.  Codex  Ephrsemi  Syri  (C),  or  Codex 
Ephrsem,  is  found  in  the  National  Library  in  Paris. 
It  was  brought  to  Europe  by  Johannes  Lascaris.  At 
his  death  in  Rome,  in  1535,  this  codex,  with  his  whole 
library,  was  purchased  by  Pietro  Strozzi.  The  Med¬ 
ici  family  later  bought  it  to  add  to  their  treasures. 
Catharine  de  Medici  carried  it  with  her  to  Paris  in 
the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  that  she  might 
read  in  it,  as  she  could,  the  sermons  of  St.  Ephriem. 
This  codex  is  a  palimpsest  (that  is,  “  rubbed  off 
again”).  Its  original  writing  had  been  partly  rubbed 
off,  and  over  it  had  been  written  the  sermons  of 
Ephraem.  Near  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century 
Peter  Allix,  a  student  in  the  Royal  Library,  thought 
he  could  see  traces  of  a  text  underneath  the  sermons 
of  Ephraem.  Careful  investigation  proved  the  truth 


154  Great  New  Testament  Manuscripts 

of  his  discovery.  A  few  pages  were  made  out  and 
used  in  Mill’s  Greek  Testament  (1710).  But  not 
until  1834  was  any  good  progress  made  in  reading 
the  underlying  text.  The  application  of  specially 
prepared  acid  brought  it  out  more  clearly.  But 
Tischendorf  (1840-41)  was  the  first  to  read  in  a  suc¬ 
cessful  manner  the  basal  text.  In  1842,  he  published 
his  results,  having  read  almost  every  word,  and  even 
having  discovered  the  notes  of  several  correctors  of 
the  text. 

Codex  Ephrsem  is  a  manuscript  of  the  Greek  Bible 
of  the  fifth  century  almost  entirely  erased  by  some 
scribe,  probably  because  of  the  scarcity  of  vellum, 
and  the  small  regard  for  this  copy  of  the  Bible,  and 
he  had  written  over  it  somewhere  about  the  twelfth 
century,  the  works  of  the  Syrian  father,  Ephrsem. 
It  is  written  in  medium-sized  uncials  on  pages  9^ 
inches  wide  by  12^4  inches  high,  one  wide  column 
to  the  page.  The  original  manuscript  presumably 
carried  the  entire  Greek  Bible.  But  its  present  con¬ 
tents  preserve  only  sixty-four  leaves  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament,  and  145  out  of  an  original  238  of  the  New. 
Parts  of  every  New  Testament  book  are  found  except 
2  Thessalonians  and  2  John.  The  “Eusebian  sec¬ 
tions  ”  and  the  division  into  chapters  appear  in  the 
Gospels,  but  in  no  other  books.  Scholars  generally 
locate  the  writing  of  this  manuscript  in  the  fifth  cen¬ 
tury.  As  an  aid  to  the  textual  study  of  the  New 
Testament  this  codex  is  very  valuable.  Dr.  Scriv¬ 
ener  set  it  about  midway  between  A  and  B,  some- 


Greek  Uible.  C^)(lc.\  I-'.ijliraem.  Fifth  Century.  A  palimpsest— Syriac 
written  over  the  (ireek  in  the  'I'weH'tli  Century. 

Matthew  20  :  16-23 


'-■M  - 


/ 


\ 


Codex  Bezce  [D) 


155 


what  inclining  to  the  latter.”  It  does  not  belong  to 
any  one  of  the  great  families  of  texts,  but  rather  par¬ 
takes  of  the  peculiarities  of  several  of  them.  Ref¬ 
erence  to  the  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible  shows  how 
frequently  textual  critics  make  use  of  its  readings  as 
of  real  textual  value. 

123.  Codex  Bezae  (D)  is  now  in  the  library  of 
the  University  at  Cambridge.  Theodore  Beza,  the 
disciple  and  friend  of  Calvin,  procured  it  from  the 
monastery  of  St.  Irenaeus  at  Lyons,  in  1562,  but  made 
little  use  of  it  because  of  its  wide  variations  from 
other  manuscripts.  Beza  presented  it  to  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Cambridge  in  1581.  It  was  first  published  in 
facsimile  type  in  1793  (Cambridge)  by  Kipling,  in 
two  folio  volumes.  Dr.  Scrivener  issued  it  in  common 
type  with  full  introduction  and  critical  notes  in  1864. 

This  codex  dates  from  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
and  was  written  probably  in  France  (Gaul).  Its 
pages  are  eight  inches  wide  by  ten  inches  high.  It 
carries  a  single  wide  column  of  Greek  on  the  left- 
hand  page,  and  facing  it  on  the  right  hand  a  column 
of  Latin.  This  is  the  oldest  known  manuscript  on 
which  two  languages  are  found.  The  script  of  the 
two  tongues  is  very  similar,  both  being  in  large 
uncials.  The  lines  are  of  uneven  length,  because  of 
an  attempt  to  make  each  line  conclude  a  sentence, 
phrase  or  clause.  Several  correctors  have  left  their 
notes  on  this  manuscript,  some  of  whom  were  nearly 
contemporary  with  the  time  of  the  production  of  the 
manuscript  itself. 


156  Great  New  Testame7it  Manuscripts 

The  presence  of  the  Latin  text  on  this  codex  is 
evidence  to  scholars  that  this  manuscript  was  written 
in  western  Europe,  where  Latin  was  the  ruling 
tongue.  Indeed,  such  a  manuscript  would  have  been 
of  little  use  in  the  East.  But  what  relation  do  these 
texts  bear  to  each  other?  Is  the  Greek  a  translation 
of  the  Latin,  or  vice  versa?  Or  are  they  independent 
texts?  Or  was  one  modified  to  suit  the  other? 
Opinions  are  divided  on  these  points.  Dr.  Scrivener 
and  most  modern  scholars  have  held  that  the  Latin 
was  modified  to  suit  the  Greek ;  but  Professor  Harris 
now  maintains  that  the  Greek  has  been  changed  to 
suit  the  Latin,  and  therefore  has  slight  value  in 
Greek  textual  work.  Its  text  is  then  of  a  peculiar 
kind.  It  often  agrees  with  the  Old  Latin  and  Syriac 
versions,  in  that  it  has  some  bold  additions,  modifi¬ 
cations  and  interpolations.  Dr.  Hort  says  (Vol.  2, 
p.  149)  :  “  At  all  events,  when  every  allowance  has 
been  made  for  possible  individual  license,  the  text  of 
D  presents  a  truer  image  of  the  form  in  which  the 
Gospels  and  Acts  were  most  widely  read  in  the  third 
and  probably  a  great  part  of  the  second  century  than 
any  other  extant  Greek  manuscript.” 

124.  There  are  still  more  than  one  hundred  uncial 
manuscripts,  of  secondary  importance,  dating  from 
the  fifth  to  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries.  These  are 
mostly  defective  and  fragmentary.  No  one  of  them 
is  thought  to  have  formed  part  of  a  complete  Greek 
Bible,  and  only  six  of  them  contain  more  than  one 
of  the  groups  of  New  Testament  books,  if  the  Acts 


Other  New  Testament  Manuscripts  157 

and  the  Apocalypse  be  reckoned  as  two  groups, — as 
held  by  the  majority  of  New  Testament  scholars. 

The  cursive  manuscripts,  dating  from  the  ninth  to 
the  fifteenth  century,  form  a  great  collection.  About 
thirty  of  them  contain  the  whole  New  Testament. 
There  are  more  than  600  cursives  of  the  Gospels ; 
more  than  200  of  the  Acts  and  the  Catholic  Epistles ; 
about  300  of  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  and  about  100  of 
the  Apocalypse.  A  full  catalogue  both  of  uncials  and 
cursives  is  found  in  Mitchell’s  Critical  Handbook  of 
the  New  Testament  (1896)  ;  and  a  brief  description 
by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbott  of  many  of  the  most  important 
may  be  consulted  in  Schaff’s  Religious  Encyclopaedia 
(Vol.  i)  ;  and  a  more  detailed  and  critical  estimate  in 
C.  R.  Gregory,  Prolegomena  to  the  eighth  edition  of 
Tischendorf’s  Greek  Testament,  published  more 
recently  in  a  revised  edition  in  German.  Prof.  H. 
von  Soden,  of  Berlin,  has  issued  the  first  part  of  an 
elaborate  work  entitled,  “Die  Schriften  des  Neuen 
I'estaments,”  which  gives  a  fresh  and  complete  sur¬ 
vey  of  the  material  of  New  Testament  text  criticism. 


CHAPTER  XV 


THE  OLD  LATIN  AND  THE  VULGATE 

125.  The  last  three  chapters  have  treated  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
as  the  principal  bases  of  our  present  day  Greek  Testa^ 
ment.  These  do  not  exhaust  our  sources,  as  we  have 
already  seen  in  the  various  references  to  the  church 
fathers.  Very  early  in  the  history  of  the  Christian 
church  the  New  Testament  was  translated  into  the 
tongues  of  the  peoples  who  inhabited  and  bordered  on 
the  Greek-speaking  world.  As  rapidly  as  Christianity 
pushed  into  these  outer  regions,  the  gospel  had  to  be 
presented  in  the  language  of  its  converts.  To  do 
this  most  effectively  it  was  translated  from  the  Greek 
into  the  languages  of  several  of  the  most  influential 
peoples. 

These  several  versions  or  translations  furnish  us 
only  indirect  evidence  as  to  the  readings  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  text.  But  the  fact  that  some  of  them  were  made 
in  the  second  century,  almost  two  centuries  back  of 
the  oldest  Greek  New  Testament  manuscript,  gives 
them  added  value.  They  therefore  stood  nearly  two 
hundred  years  closer  to  the  autographs  than  Codex 
Vaticanus,  our  oldest  manuscript,  and  were  made,  in  • 
fact,  no  more  than  a  century,  and  perhaps  a  genera¬ 
tion,  after  the  penning  of  the  latest  New  Testament 
158 


0/d  Latm  Texts 


159 


books.  In  order,  then,  to  make  proper  use  of  them 
in  textual  work,  one  must  re-translate  them  into 
Greek,  to  see  what  the  basis  of  their  translation  was. 

But  difficulty  faces  the  scholar  who  attempts  this 
kind  of  work.  He  must  remember  that  these  ver¬ 
sions  have  been  subject  to  the  same  kind  of  scribal 
errors  and  corruptions  as  those  found  in  Greek  and 
all  other  manuscripts.  If  now  we  had  the  first  trans¬ 
lation  of  each  separate  version  from  the  Greek  we 
should  have  a  prize  for  determining  the  original 
Greek  from  which  the  translation  was  made.  But 
we  have  neither  this  nor  any  manuscript  of  any  of 
the  versions  reaching  back  of  the  fourth  century. 
Of  several  of  the  versions  there  is  not  as  yet  any 
reliable  critical  edition.  Scholars  must  either  make 
scant  use  of  what  we  have,  or  at  great  pains  produce 
a  text  that  gives  us  a  consensus  of  the  best  readings 
of  all  the  best  manuscripts. 

The  most  valuable  of  the  versions  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  are  the  Latin,  the  Syriac,  the  Coptic,  the  Ethi- 
opic,  the  Gothic  and  the  Armenian. 

126.  The  Latin  Bibles  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
discussed  somewhat  in  detail  in  Chapter  VII.  We 
observed  there  that  the  Old  Latin  was  a  translation, 
for  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  Septuagint,  while 
for  the  New  it  was  made  directly  from  the  original 
Greek.  Of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Old  Latin  text 
exists  only  in  fragments,  but  in  the  New  Testament 
the  text  is  substantially  complete.  The  Vulgate  of 
the  New  Testament  is  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin 


i6o  The  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate 

that  was  made  by  Jerome,  one  of  the  greatest  biblical 
scholars  of  the  early  church,  who  did  his  work  near 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 

From  quotations  in  the  writings  of  the  Latin 
church  fathers,  such  as  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Lucifer 
of  Cagliari,  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Ru- 
finus,  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  the  Old  Latin  New 
Testament  can  be  almost  entirely  recovered.  The 
prevalence  of  this  version  in  the  second  century  is 
unquestioned.  It  was  doubtless  modified  and  often 
corrected  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  some  of  the 
variant  readings  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  found  in 
the  different  provinces  and  dependencies  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  It  was  just  these  wide  divergencies 
that  led  to  the  revision  of  the  Old  Latin  version  by 
Jerome  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  Thus 
scholars  find  three  groups  of  the  Old  Latin  texts : 
(i)  African,  or  N.  African;  (2)  European;  and  (3) 
Italian. 

The  history  of  the  origin  or  growth  of  these  differ¬ 
ent  families  of  texts  is  but  imperfectly  known.  They 
are  classified  and  arranged  largely  on  the  basis  of  the 
quotations  of  the  fathers. 

127.  As  the  Vulgate  superseded  the  Old  Latin 
versions,  the  latter  lost  their  authority  in  the  Church. 
As  a  consequence  the  manuscripts  of  these  versions 
fell  into  disuse,  and  in  course  of  time  largely  vanished 
from  sight.  But  there  are  about  forty  manuscripts 
and  fragments  of  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Latin  New 
Testament  extant  to-day.  Some  of  them  are  so  frag- 


Old  Latin  Gospels  1 6 1 

mentary  as  almost  to  be  counted  out.  Of  the  Gos¬ 
pels  there  are  no  more  than  twenty-eight,  fragments 
and  all ;  of  the  Acts,  seven ;  of  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
five ;  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  nine,  and  of  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse,  three.  Manuscripts  of  the  Old  Latin  text  are 
indicated  by  small  Roman  letters  of  the  Latin  alpha¬ 
bet,  a,  b,  c,  etc. 

Some  of  the  most  notable  of  these  manuscripts  are : 
Codex  Vercellensis  (a),  which  contains  the  Gospels, 
with  lacunae,  or  gaps,  in  the  Western  order;  that  is, 
Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark.  It  is  written  in  silver 
letters,  two  columns  to  a  page,  on  fine  vellum.  It  is 
supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Eusebius,  bishop 
of  Vercelli,  about  365  A.  D.,  and  is  thus  equal  in  age 
to  the  Greek  New  Testament  manuscripts.  It  is  now 
in  the  cathedral  of  Vercelli,  Italy. 

Codex  Veronensis  (b),  contains,  with  some  lacunae, 
the  Gospels,  and  belongs  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  cen¬ 
tury.  It  is  of  great  value,  and  is  preserved  in  Verona, 
Italy. 

Codex  Colbertinus  (c),  contains  the  Gospels  in 
Old  Latin,  and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
Vulgate.  It  was  written  in  the  eleventh  or  twelfth 
century  in  Languedoc,  where  the  Old  Latin  was  used 
down  to  a  late  period  in  history.  It  is  a  valuable  doc¬ 
ument,  and  is  preserved  in  Paris. 

Codex  Bezae  (d),  compare  §123. 

Codex  Brixianus  (f),  contains  the  Gospels,  with  a 
few  lacunae.  It  seems  to  be  an  Italian  text.  It  dates 
from  the  sixth  century,  and  is  now  at  Brescia. 


i62 


The  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate 

Codex  Palatinus  (e),  a  mere  fragment,  but  African 
in  type,  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century.  It  is  now  in 
Vienna. 

Codex  Bobiensis  (k),  a  fifth  or  sixth  century  form 
of  the  African  text.  This  and  the  preceding  text(e) 
were  pronounced  by  Tischendorf  to  have  remarkable 
value. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  mentioned  above 
and  others  in  the  list  extant  can  be  classified  under 
the  three  texts  already  mentioned,  viz. :  the  African, 
European  and  Italian ;  some,  however,  are  so  mixed 
as  to  be  indeterminate. 

128.  The  Acts  is  represented  by  Codex  Bezae  (d) 
(§123)  ;  by  the  Eatin  text  of  the  bilingual  Codex 
Laudianus  (e),  which  has  the  Latin  text  on  the  left 
and  the  Greek  on  the  right-hand  page,  the  reverse  of 
Codex  Bezae.  It  is  written  in  large  uncials  in  lines 
of  uneven  length,  some  of  them  containing  no  more 
than  one  or  two  words.  The  text  is  admittedly  West¬ 
ern,  sprinkled  with  Alexandrian  readings.  It  dates 
from  the  sixth  century,  and  was  presented  by  Arch¬ 
bishop  Laud  to  the  library  of  Oxford  in  1636.  It  is 
by  far  the  most  valuable  biblicaLmanuscript  possessed 
by  that  library.  Codex  Gigas  Holmiensis  (g),  said 
to  be  the  largest  manuscript  in  the  world,  contains 
the  Acts  and  Apocalypse  in  the  Old  Latin,  and  the 
rest  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Vulgate,  also  some 
fragments  of  a  palimpsest  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  cen¬ 
tury. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  are  represented  by  Codex 


^w^mm 


:vv*^r-L- 


'U,*f0S- ■(:■ 


a#5#isi^| 

^  t>iliiii~yirii  1  i*^^lrr  r  '•  •’ 


^mmmk 

5#Wtpii£ii^^  ►! 


:-m  h  .  < 


MidiiiMiik 


Old  Latin  Oospels.  Codex  Vercellensis.  Late  Fouri.li  Century, 

John  i6  ;  23-30 


Old  Latin  Epistles  and  Apocalypse  163 

Claromontanus  (d),  a  bilingual  text  after  the  style  of 
D  (§123),  which  holds  an  important  place  in  the  esti¬ 
mation  of  textual  critics.  It  may  belong  to  Codex 
Bezse,  and  is  here  classified  under  the  same  but  with  a 
small  letter  indicative  of  its  relative  position  among 
manuscripts. 

The  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  which  usually  follow 
Acts  in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  were  not  all  incor¬ 
porated  into  the  Latin  canon  until  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury.  I  Peter,  i  John  and  Jude  were  the  only  ones 
previously  recognized  and  received.  One  of  the  best 
representatives  of  this  division  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  is  Codex  Corbeiensis  of  James  (ff),  a  manu¬ 
script  of  the  tenth  century.  This  text  is  now  in  St. 
Petersburg.  This  translation  is  thought  to  be  as  old 
as  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century.  Cyprian  sup¬ 
plies  numerous  quotations  from  what  appears  to  be 
the  African  text  of  these  epistles. 

The  Apocalypse  formed  part  of  the  Old  Latin  New 
Testament  as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  it.  The  Afri¬ 
can  text  of  the  Apocalypse  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  revised  in  the  fourth  century  as  were  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  except  Acts.  Hence  the  text 
found  in  Primasius’  commentary  of  the  sixth  century 
differs  only  slightly  from  the  text  quoted  in  Cyprian. 
The  quotations  from  the  Apocalypse  in  the  writings 
of  the  church  fathers  are  so  numerous  as  almost  to 
determine  with  certainty  the  character  of  the  text 
from  which  they  quoted. 

Of  the  manuscripts  and  fragments  named  in  these 


164  The  Old  Lathi  and  the  Vulgate 

two  sections,  two  are  bilinguals,  Codex  Bezse  (Evan, 
d),  and  Codex  Claromontanus  (Paul,  d)  ;  four,  as 
well  as  Evan,  d,  viz.:  Codd.  Vercellensis  (Evan,  a), 
Veronensis  (Evan,  b),  Palatinus  (Evan,  e),  and 
Bobiensis  (Evan,  k),  are  dated  in  the  fifth  or  fourth 
century,  when  they  were  in  use  in  the  Christian  church. 

129.  The  above  mentioned  manuscripts  were 
doubtless  written  just  as  the  Old  Latin  was  grad¬ 
ually  receding  from  its  position  of  influence  and 
power  in  its  competition  with  the  revised  New  Testa¬ 
ment  of  Jerome.  The  fact  that  the  two  versions  ex¬ 
isted  side  by  side  for  a  couple  of  centuries — the  fourth 
to  the  sixth — contributed  toward  an  intermixture  of 
the  two  texts.  Scholars  and  scribes  who  either  stud¬ 
ied  the  two  translations  or  copied  them,  were  not 
always  careful  to  refrain  from  either  inserting  on  the 
margins  or  incorporating  into  the  text,  familiar  ex¬ 
pressions  or  explanations  from  one  or  other  of  the 
texts.  Such  simultaneous  use  of  two  similar  Latin 
versions  led  to  a  larger  mixture  of  the  two  versions 
in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  than  in  the  Old. 

The  superiority  of  Jerome’s  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  doubtless  led  scholars  to  look  with  greater 
favor  on  his  revised  New  Testament.  Not  only  the 
faithfulness  of  its  revision  on  the  basis  of  the  Greek, 
but  its  harmonistic  character — an  attempted  union  of 
the  different  Old  Latin  texts— also  gave  Jerome’s 
work  a  larger  place  in  the  thoughts  of  leaders  in  the 
church. 

Another  fact  in  its  adoption  is  significant :  “  in  the 


^  ^  •!?; 

■**  yis.  •>* 


V 


V  ■*»  1 

^  4 

i=  -fe 

s - 


f  X.  O 
5  5 

X/  *,  ,* 


2 


r 

J? 


2-  -  ry  ,  -  O 

>  -■ — 7  <■.  —  ^  —  y  .. 

1^  _  .  ^  _  U«  ^  '  ,.;•  r^,  ^ 


? ... 


5,$.  ^  X  S  '  ^  C 

■  i?  ^  C  -  ,  X  ~ 

^  2  ^  X  ;i2 

X  'i  5  ^  2  ~  ~  - 

D  -,  c  ^ 


p --2  :> 


,  Ci  2  X 

5  Z  y 


e 

z 


•5 

2  Z 


<y  Z' 

7 

/**■ 

r- 

^  z 
Z  z. 


^  t  d  ^  ^  Z  >  ^  z:  'y--^.-^- 

'iz  T  ’i/  ’—  Z",  C  y  St  z  u  ^  z.  y  Q  '<  y  '  y  . 

5  ig-ii:  ^  ^  y  y  z  6  z  y  H  y  Z  I  ^  i  ^  ; 

a  ‘U  V  i-  ^  v:  :2J  ^  —  Z  ^  y'  ^  C,^2^- 

r-  ^  r“  /«.  '^  Cv  W  —  ii  —  >  r-f  V  .  w  »J  ’ 


?■.  3  -3  ^  =4 

i;  y 


P  P  ‘2'  =ii  ir  'P  ^ 

C  3  'O  ^  i-  '-2 

^  ^  'w  *7  Qii 

^  ^  c  5  p  -z  -  i;  p  p  c  p 

P p  2  5  2^  ^  ^  ^  9  4  ? 

-  —  -^y_wy  Z22 


Ni^  O 


5  Pr^  p 

—  ,^  y  X  — j  17  -r» 

y  P  7  y  P  d-  ^  i  y 
2  2  S4  P  y  ■ 


V«.  '•  •  g?-.  L^  ~-  .' *C  .  ''X  >«/  ‘  2_  ■  _ 

iz  h:  P  •-  iP  -'.  5  I  r  I'  5  b  -  o,E  --5  ^ 

.  -r ~  'p  P'P  jP  ^  7  '  ^-5^2  '■<i'  '^'  r 

Or^‘u9  2£^x3  ^^5  :*gl  :  'P  ^  -D  4 

'-  P'r-ira^  -  ^  -  -  '  - 


fir]*!  -2-4  4,>>-<r  S  ^ 

n-.  *-  '•«'  "  J.  IT  .  '!>  -T  ■•—  ■  “*» 

4  It  t  P  i^ 


<<  «*■  '  -  -o 
(Ss.  ~  ? 


:^c-2  o  ^r  az  i  ^5'zvls 


^ 


!i<  i:  S  -P  P  h  P  P  A<::  y  •■ 

@  rfi  u  S' -9-4  2'  2  2  o  4  -  u  „ 

'9'?,"'^2iz  ^'0-^  ~  ^  i  y/C  9  2-z  u.  y 

y  ■  .  Z.  ■'  ~  t.  ^  -  2  Z,  r'  4  '• .  <  ^  y-  5  i  -•  'aj  '.5 


o 


a.-cn4r-:  ^  C2<P 
;Z  c  4  '/  <’4  4  P  4  4, _  ,2“ <  2  z  PT  o  ~  p  u  4 

•■>  Kfp-z: p  5  ^-0 

-5  ‘S  40  :<  -i:  2  ^  t:  u  4^2-4  9  i'P 

4  <-'zj  y  u  ■«<•.<  -t  -  C  ^  2  4  <•  'o  2  ”5  if  4  -« 

■■■O'  ■  •■;•■■-':> 


Greek 

Codex  Claromontanus  (d)  (?  128).  Fourth  or  Fifth  Cemurv 

Romans  7  ;  4-7 


Latin  Texts  Mixed  165 

sixth  century,  in  Gaul,  most  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  quoted  from  Jerome,  while  for  the 
New  Testament  the  Old  Latin  holds  its  own  ”  (White, 
Hastings’  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  iv.  877).  The  sixth 
century  saw  the  almost  universal  adoption  of  the  Vul¬ 
gate  by  the  leaders  in  the  church,  except  in  Africa. 
The  real  victory  for  the  Vulgate  was  achieved  when 
Pope  Gregory  the  Great  (590-604)  put  the  new  re¬ 
vision  on  a  par  with  the  Old  Latin  text.  In  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  Job  he  even  expresses  a  preference  for 
Jerome’s  revision. 

130.  This  substantial  endorsement  of  Jerome’s 
work  by  the  Roman  pontiff  radiated  its  influence 
throughout  the  Roman  Empire  and  gave  it  an  im¬ 
petus  that  it  had  never  before  received  by  any  high 
authority.  Such  supreme  recognition,  however,  could 
not  at  once  cast  into  the  background  a  text  revered 
like  the  Old  Latin.  In  fact,  Jerome’s  text  in  some 
provinces,  notably  in  Gaul,  had  become  distressingly 
corrupt,  while  in  Italy  it  was  kept  comparatively  pure. 
Among  our  minor  sources  of  information,  such  as  the 
late  manuscripts,  Lectionaries,  quotations  and  selec¬ 
tions  in  service  books  of  the  church,  we  learn  that  the 
Old  Latin  text  held  its  own  for  several  centuries.  One 
old  manuscript  from  the  ninth  century  (St.  Germain) 
retains  the  Old  Latin  text  of  Judith,  Tobit  and  Mat¬ 
thew.  Codex  Colbertinus  (c),  already  noticed 
(§127),  of  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century,  has  the 
Gospels  in  Old  Latin,  and  the  rest  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  in  the  Vulgate.  The  Perpignan  manuscript 


1 66  The  Old  Latm  mid  the  Vulgate 

(of  Paris)  of  the  thirteenth  century,  has  Acts  i :  i  to 
13:  7,  and  28:  15-31  in  Old  Latin,  but  the  Gospels  in 
the  Vulgate. 

Christianity’s  conquest  of  Great  Britain  and  Ire¬ 
land  took  place  while  the  Old  Latin  still  held  sway. 
Augustine’s  mission  to  England  introduced  there  the 
Vulgate.  The  scholars  of  Northumbria  soon  adopted 
this  improved  text,  and  later  secured  the  great 
Codex  Amiatinus,  already  mentioned  (§67),  one  of 
the  best  manuscripts  of  the  entire  Vulgate  now  ex¬ 
tant. 

The  Irish,  too,  until  after  Columba’s  time,  used  the 
Old  Latin ;  a  single  almost  pure  Old  Latin  text  of  the 
Gospels  is  extant  in  Codex  Usserianus  (r).  After  the 
year  700  the  Vulgate  text  gained  an  increasingly 
strong  foothold  among  the  Irish,  with  the  result  that 
the  Latin  Bibles  of  Ireland  and  North  Britain  partook 
of  a  mixed  type  of  manuscripts  of  which  the  Book  of 
Armagh  is  an  example.  A  discussion  of  the  early 
texts  in  England  is  reserved  for  Chapter  XIX. 

131.  There  were  early  attempts  to  arrest  the  cor¬ 
ruptions  of  the  Vulgate, — to  purge  from  it  the  arbi¬ 
trary  interpolations  of  scribes  and  scholars.  Within 
about  150  years  after  Jerome’s  day  Cassiodorus  made 
a  serious  attempt  to  revise  the  current  text  of  Jer¬ 
ome.  The  bulk  of  our  information  regarding  his 
work  is  found  in  his  own  instruction  to  the  younger 
brethren  in  the  monastery  at  Vivarium,  about  544. 
He  desires  that  they  study  their  Bibles  in  the 
**  emended  codices,”  and  says  that  his  nine  codices, 


qciw.iNjxvres'rATet’fUT  ' 
saioK-'ipsius  • 

|;C< '  iN^  sxcoqx  ei^xr  Kktk?  hxp>c)f 
.  <>Am’>oN/ai»«^<'ixjsCKia"> 

C  T  cxcl ,  Al  l  >XU  riH  lO  CC  XXO  N  K 
diCCNS 

Sis’c  cjtnC'N.'ows  enini  ibM 
R  NxzxRC’N'cueKisii  p€r<C'CRcvf' 
sooTcqcjisisycsOi 
t  '  C'llNCfitpAUIT  lUj  i!xs'<MCASS 

E  bttx.^xtriC^x’c  exexi  ximI  ,!  ,o 

W'-  e  R'cKAx )mior:c tsxc'r  lU  xiCt 

1^0  PuXIHJNiUW  !NXt>cbKK\> 

iS  exit  !  XKtll-O  K’(h!l,qUC 

lb  llXxKl's  >vX’>CUlT 

I':;'  erpb-vuscsT  lx\tK■>U!^;ovl>^:lly 

| '  '  eTcos!,,o<.|*.it’B\vruR 
I  •;  '  ..  AdlXCHCtXn  PKA'S'  I  I  S 

b  tjtSoOXXr  boCXK'.UlHRR 
|!  UUI\  l\|H>rC5I  y^'ClXltR  KiU: 

b  Knf )eR.vi  spi  im  1  Rxis 

^  i'  i.sxntiN’bjs:  e  iexcti  s- 1 

i ^  C'l  biunl  .tAIUTOR  p\U'i\<>C  ll  I  ,o 

Ifbciii  lNCia’>'sXX\>  1  XXXK1i>RXX’JONIt^ 
|?«vS  yiAqeVSAU'IXXH  bx^SV'NACCKA 
‘  iN'nwKH'i  iNOoa'jCKbsKvx'ssy 
:SocRCiSAxi'iexn  >’Knx-)vis 
.  TeNXHUXUR  AIUC’N’IS  {X’RRIl'R 
H  ’  CTRiXACK.’IHIS'  r  t!  I  .UU')  piXX'X 
trf^TANSStipcRtl  J.va'*  KI^IX.RV 

U1  I  jX’iMil  C  IX^X\>1SI  1  ll  I  XU) 
,X"tCA)M  l\UO  SURCU\>' 

•  OiNISTRXIWl  ll.ljs 
(,:ucp  suIlAui  cu)  ocQidRst  r 
XX|>,\’€)>  tfAllb.AReH.VNT 
<l)OS  CIXRIlsl  WXXlURIISqS 
pp.  X»UCVH,VVr  l/Jx'S  Abtxiui  ,. 

e)\N(.is  unpxt 

p.»««  '^'e\K  vxiRAHxreos  - 
|  A~t”X'ieH\Nl  e  IIV<.T>  <>Ae,U)x^NIA 
I'  Auxi!.ijisci,Aa)vs7  lAt  roi 

fe  tVN  i’i\x|mA,itjes|:i!,ius.M 

1;  e'CtNXXiepVNH  NA)SS)Neb\I 
Iv  ■  e\  lx)qcii  .  ■ 


fe 


x>x..  ^ 


I 


,w 


x]tT!x  -x'leaAs'T  jp«uax  csx)  xpS^  Wv 
I  'AtTxwnxxn^’tcx’CRC'S.^a^  4  , 

*  ixeescRTtitp  Lx’.uox  " 
ex  I  c iRjAxe  Rcvpni’.eHAX  i-ct  u)>  b 

t;  { u A  svm  is’T  ajx'C|Uc xOipsa"  . 
C!  Oo  JNCHANT  i!  ,LaO'» 

N<  x''tse<.  xx<;Rt;  r  ah  tax . 

cpilB>  ill  CXtT  qul.X  c  r\l  Tiv  CiUl 
l  AliRas  t-^puRT  eVOXCCUAK 
tX'l  7 /ARA- IXX- NiTU'i  bl 

quiA  ibex)  OMSSAixxiu) 
e  rcRAv  pmc'C'K  \N>  isslsx 
tx>t:is  exl.il  vexe 
I  ■  XCI  CKli>  C  S  V  XCl'HXV)  euux 
* '  T(1R{;\C  tiVn<,K-ReN'  I'  ISOCKU 
C  I  !  AC  le  1  Rc:  N '?  ( le  lUK  IU>  0 1 
cn  IjXSeSTXHXV  SAC'US  si  ACjNCi' 
CXNXSXiHlb 

CTUfOl  i  NXUC'5S"I  VN  ICS 

sexxiss  l  AC  SCHV* 


jXIseVK'RC  S  XCl  U  UsOlSCA  Nee 
RW  i  c  !  !•  ACIXHAN  i  RA'  l  lX 
VSCX  ScX  NS  XU  KU-'  INUN\U> 
VVUCX)^  CfllXCXRXT 

S1UX»\(S  • 

RvX  XCItl  AU  l<X))  XICRUV 

JXx''CKA'Ra  [Xisil  J  XKU 
C  rscxX NS’  OueeiVA  i 
bCN\UICul.A  IXIRH.VS 
P'bi  1  I  CCSSVCU  1  ACriCXT'  I  UX)CU 

bivn  Xi>sKnoN'cxv) 

C'dc:  iwl  max  c  i  Kw.vrct  i\ 
UCSI  1}AIN'C'A|vk1RVU) 

C  1  iU'S]  '•ONPcNS  S  IUX)N 
bivnillj 

pRXCXCpV  OR  pt  tVlOVXU) 
\xHi(0)lAix>RANres 
Nihii.  et  pioxis 

KdC’Ri.O  XU  ICO)  icio  ,  ' 

I  XXXHU  lAq  iC 
<  •  icuuc  1  xK  ^lecisseN  i 
UiNcJxisCRUNI  plsviKHVc 
UC'  ii  1 1 1  UblNOOX  C  OpiOSAO) 
RUO.  'f  X,  RAl  UR  \u  KXO  RC  IXXV>kX 


Codex  Aniiaiimis  67,  130).  Seveiitli  Century.  Letiding  Manuscript  of 

the  V lilgate 
J.iikc  4  ;  32I)  to  3  :  6 


Vulgate  ou  the  Continent  167 

covering  the  whole  Bible,  were  revised  by  him  “  with 
the  collation  of  early  codices,”  and  that  he  left  them 
a  Greek  pandect,  or  whole  Bible,  by  which,  as  Jerome 
had  done,  they  could  correct  the  errors  in  their  Latin 
version.  We  have  no  list  of  the  corrections  of  Cas- 
siodorus,  nor  have  we  any  fragment  of  his  work,  un¬ 
less  it  be  part  of  the  great  Codex  Amiatinus  (of  the 
eighth  century),  already  described.  The  divisions  of 
this  codex  and  its  introductory  matter  accord  with 
Cassiodorus’  own  account  of  his  work. 

The  Vulgate  carried  to  England,  and  thence  also 
into  Ireland,  in  Augustine’s  day  and  immediately 
thereafter,  becoming  somewhat  modified  by  the  Old 
Latin,  was  later  carried  to  the  continent,  to  France, 
Switzerland  and  Germany.  It  was  copied  and  multi¬ 
plied  by  Irish  and  British  monks  in  continental  mon¬ 
asteries,  and  further  changed  to  accord  with  other 
texts  found  in  these  several  countries.  To  this  con¬ 
dition  of  things  we  are  indebted  for  the  prolific  crop 
of  manuscripts  from  the  ninth  century. 

The  Moors  practically  shut  up  northwestern  Spain 
to  itself.  Closed  in  their  mountain  fastnesses  the 
Spanish  monks  perpetuated  their  own  Old  Latin 
Bible,  which  they  added  to,  interpolated,  expanded  to 
suit  their  fancy  until  their  text  became  exceedingly 
corrupt.  The  Irish  manuscripts  that  had  been 
brought  to  Europe  and  the  Spanish  documents  met 
in  Gaul  or  France,  and  presented  a  double  confusion 
to  Bible  students.  This  condition  of  things  invited 
correction. 


1 68  The  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate 

132.  Charlemagne  was  fully  aware  of  the  existing 
confusion  and  set  about  to  find  a  remedy,  that  the 
church  might  have  a  unified  or  uniform  standard 
Bible.  The  records  tell  us  that  in  797  he  put  the  task 
into  the  hands  of  an  Englishman,  Alcuin,  abbot  of 
St.  IMartin  at  Tours.  Having  at  hand  both  Spanish 
and  Irish  manuscripts,  he  sent  to  his  native  place, 
Northumbria,  for  additional  documents,  and  docu¬ 
ments  of  a  less  corrupt  character.  On  the  basis  of 
these  manuscripts,  regardless  of  the  Greek,  Alcuin 
revised  the  current  Latin  Bible.  On  Christmas,  801, 
Alcuin  presented  to  Charlemagne  his  revised  edition 
of  the  Latin  Bible.  This  is  most  nearly  represented 
to-day  in  the  fine  Codex  Vallicellianus  at  Rome. 

Others  besides  Charlemagne  became  conscious  of 
the  need  of  a  revision  of  the  Bible.  Theodulf,  bishop 
of  Orleans  (787-821),  through  his  acquaintance  with 
southern  France  and  northern  Spain ;  put  himself  in 
possession  of  both  Irish  and  Spanish  manuscripts.  By 
a  study  of  all  these  texts,  with  commendable  zeal  a'nd 
industry,  Theodulf  produced  a  revised  text  of  the 
Vulgate.  But  his  revision  is  not  of  much  critical 
value,  because  of  its  unevenness,  and  of  his  method 
of  putting  in  the  margin  the  variants  which  he  had 
collected,  and  of  thus  giving  a  permanent  place  to 
many  corruptions  of  the  Spanish  texts.  This  re¬ 
vision  is  best  represented  by  a  Latin  Bible  in  the  Na¬ 
tional  Library  at  Paris,  numbered  Lat.  9380.  Theo¬ 
dulf ’s  privately  undertaken  revision  exercised  little 
influence  on  the  history  of  the  text. 


INCIPITLIBEI^ 

ISAIAE’PKO 


PHETAE 


Tsiorsx 
I  T^epiLii 
'K.cn  o  s  ‘ 
q  Cl  Acre’Ll  I 

j  u  o  Km 
OThlCRu 
S^Lecn  J sf 

I 

^iCBas  o 

^  T  X  e  y(>A  [  K> 

ervi^nmlufj^ei^ctp i q ^ m cf >7rJocumr 
ftLofenuc^-iiit  e^^^l^n  lprix-arem 
(pj^^^ej^tinTmer-  C^c^iouttr  lyoC poff^^for'^ 
fiiuyn  eTrak./7naf^ eiclo rritn I  fut .  (fr~jkU^l 
non c^^Ti oti ixrme^.  po puLu  fmeti  fnon  t 

qtxtT»cx^  {hnin\  ftUif  fce4^'rKx^f 


Alcuin’s  Revision  of  Vulgate,  A  .D.  8ot  (g  132) 
Isaiah  i  ;  i-^a. 


1 


■■  ■ 


169 


Decline  in  Text  Purity 

133.  The  monastery  of  St.  Gall,  near  Lake  Con¬ 
stance  in  Switzerland,  was  the  home  of  a  particularly 
zealous  and  active  school  of  Bible  students  in  the 
ninth  century.  Irish  monks  flocked  to  its  retreat  and 
took  with  them  their  own  style  of  writing.  Under 
the  great  scholar  Hartmut,  in  the  ninth  century,  this 
school  produced  many  biblical  manuscripts  written  by 
Irish  scribes,  and  in  imitation  of  the  Irish  style  of 
script,  by  native  scribes.  This  peculiar  style  seems 
to  have  prevailed  in  the  upper  Rhine  valley.  The 
text,  however,  perpetuated  at  this  place  came  from 
Italy  and  Spain. 

But  the  close  of  the  ninth  century  saw  the  decline 
of  Charlemagne’s  influence,  the  deterioration  of  the 
biblical  texts  copied  in  the  monasteries,  and  the  deca¬ 
dence  of  the  power  of  Christianity  in  France.  The 
invasion  of  the  Normans  crushed  the  school  at  Tours, 
and  the  Danes  broke  up  the  famous  schools  at  Wear- 
mouth  and  Jarrow  in  England.  By  these  calamities, 
biblical  scholarship  of  every  kind  received  almost  a 
death-dealing  blow.  Efforts  to  regain  a  footing 
seemed  to  be  almost  in  vain.  Lan  franc,  the  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury  (1069-89)  is  said  to  have 
done  some  correcting  of  all  the  l)Ooks  of  the  Bible  and 
to  have  taught  his  pupils  the  same.  But  unfortunately 
nothing  of  these  labors  remains.  Stephen  Harding, 
abbot  of  Citeaux,  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 
century  collated  good  Latin  and  Greek  manuscripts 
and  made  a  revision  of  some  considerable  value  that  is 
now  preserved  in  four  volumes  in  the  library  at  Dijon, 


170  The  Old  Latin  and  the  Vzdgate 

France.  Cardinal  Nicolaus  Maniacoria  likewise  issued 
a  revision,  now  extant  in  a  manuscript  at  Venice. 

134.  The  thirteenth  century  was  marked  by  an 
astounding  spirit  of  revision  in  France,  due  in  the 
main  to  the  influence  of  the  king,  St.  Louis,  and  to 
the  vigorous  scholarship  generated  by  the  new  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Paris.  There  was  most  extraordinary 
activity  in  the  production  of  new  Latin  Bibles.  Roger 
Bacon  tells  us  that  theologians  and  booksellers  com¬ 
bined  to  produce  a  fixed  type  of  text,  which  he  calls 
Exemplar  Parisiense.  The  fame  of  the  University 
created  a  large  demand  for  these  books,  and  they 
went  far  and  wide.  But  the  Exemplar  Parisiense 
was  a  corrupt  text  which  Bacon  deplored.  This  de¬ 
fect  scholars  attempted  to  remedy  by  uniting  their 
researches  in  the  production  of  a  list  of  corrections 
based  mainly  on  Latin  and  Greek  manuscripts  and 
called  Correctoria  Bibliorum.  Four  separate  bodies 
of  men  or  individuals  prepared  as  many  lists  of  cor¬ 
rections  to  be  employed  by  the  Bible  students  and 
copyists  in  Paris  and  in  Rome.  These  counters  to 
the  multiplication  of  degenerate  texts  of  the  Vulgate 
furnished  a  partial  remedy  to  the  growing  evil.  The 
most  important  contribution  to  the  form  of  our  Bible 
that  sprang  out  of  the  Paris  activity  was  the  formal 
division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters.  Paragraph  and 
section  divisions  had  already  existed  for  centuries. 
But  Stephen  Langton,  a  doctor  in  the  University  of 
Paris,  and  later  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  made  the 
divisions  of  our  Bible  known  as  chapters,  about  1228. 


The  Council  of  Trent  1 7 1 

135.  The  masses  of  corrections  that  had  been 
collected  were  put  to  good  use  before  the  Vulgate 
was  put  into  permanent  form  by  the  printing  press. 
When  the  literary  revival  of  the  fifteenth  century 
struck  the  various  national  coteries  of  biblical  stu¬ 
dents,  strenuous  effort  was  made  to  find  the  best  pos¬ 
sible  text  of  each  version.  At  the  invention  of  print¬ 
ings  steps  were  taken  to  put  the  Latin  Bible  into  per¬ 
manent  form.  The  first  complete  book  to  be  issued 
from  the  printing  press  was  a  Latin  Bible — the  Vul¬ 
gate — printed  in  two  volumes  by  Gutenberg  and  Fust, 
at  Mayence  (Mainz),  in  1455.  commonly  known 

as  the  “  Mazarin  Bible,”  for  it  was  first  found  in  recent 
times  in  the  library  of  Cardinal  Mazarin.  It  was 
made,  however,  from  some  inferior  manuscripts,  and, 
with  all  its  beauty  as  a  piece  of  mechanism,  it  is  full 
of  errors.  Thenceforth  Latin  Bibles  poured  forth  in 
profusion  from  the  press.  It  is  said  that  during  the 
first  half  century  of  printing  124  editions  were  pub¬ 
lished.  In  1514  ff.  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  pre¬ 
sented  as  one  of  its  texts  the  Vulgate  revised  with  the 
aid  of  several  ancient  manuscripts.  In  1528,  Ste- 
phanus’  Vulgate  Bible,  a  critical  text  based  on  three 
manuscripts,  was  issued  at  Paris;  later  (1538-40)  a 
larger  edition  appeared,  which  had  been  prepared  on 
the  basis  of  seventeen  manuscripts.  This  is  in  reality 
the  foundation  of  the  official  Roman  Vulgate,  adopted 
at  the  Council  of  Trent,  April  8,  1546.  The  first  Latin 
Bible  to  contain  the  modern  verse  divisions  was  a 
small  octavo  edition  of  Stephanus,  dated  1555. 


172  The  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate 

The  authority  granted  by  the  Council  of  Trent  for 
the  publication  of  an  official  Vulgate  was  not  imme¬ 
diately  put  to  use.  Professor  John  Hentenius,  of 
the  University  of  Louvain,  by  the  use  of  thirty-one 
manuscripts  and  two  printed  copies,  prepared  a  pri¬ 
vate  edition  (1547)  that  was  often  reprinted.  Several 
of  the  popes  bestirred  themselves  to  prepare  an  offi¬ 
cial  edition  that  would  answer  the  requirements  of 
the  church.  The  oldest  and  best  manuscripts  were 
collected  and  a  commission  was  appointed  to  edit  an 
official  text.  The  work  lagged,  however,  until  Sixtus  V 
came  to  the  pontificate  in  1585  (-90).  With  great 
zeal  and  diligence  both  he  and  his  commission  pushed 
forward  the  work.  Manuscripts,  printed  editions, 
and  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek  were  taken  into 
consideration,  the  readings  which  agreed  with  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  receiving  the  preference  where 
there  was  disagreement  between  authorities. 

The  edition  produced  by  the  commission  was 
printed  and  published  by  the  Vatican  press  in  three 
volumes  in  1590,  and  was  designated  the  “  Sixtine 
Edition.”  It  bore  on  its  title  page :  “  Biblia  Sacra 
Vulgatse  Editionis,  tribus  tomis,  distincta  Romae,  ex 
Typographia  Apostolica  Vaticana,  M.  D.  XC.”  On  the 
second  page  we  meet  the  papal  designation :  '‘Biblia 
Sacra  Vulgatae  editionis  ad  concilii  Tridentini  prae- 
scriptum  emendata  et  a  Sixto.  v.  P.  M.  recognita  et 
approbata.”  This  edition  was  intended  to  be  that 
authorized  by  the  Council  of  Trent;  and  by  the  bull 
recited  in  the  preface  it  was  to  be  used  in  all  the 


173 


Clementine  Vulgate  of  I^g2 

churches  in  the  Christian  world.  No  other  edition 
should  be  published  without  the  permission  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  nor  should  this  ‘‘ Sixtine  Edition”- be 
reprinted  in  any  other  place  than  the  Vatican  for  the 
next  ten  years.  Such  editions  as  should  appear  sub¬ 
sequently  should  be  carefuly  collated  with  the  Sixtine 
edition,  should  be  accompanied  with  an  official  attes¬ 
tation,  and  should  have  “no  variant  readings,  scholia 
or  glosses  printed  in  the  margin.”  Violation  of  these 
orders  was  to  be  punished  by  the  greater  excommuni¬ 
cation. 

136.  This  first  official  Vulgate,  the  Sixtine  edition 
of  1590,  did  not  meet  with  a  universal  and  enthusi¬ 
astic  reception.  Its  requirements  and  its  new  trans¬ 
lations  were  unpopular,  and  the  death  of  its  great 
projector.  Pope  Sixtus  V,  in  the  same  year  were  dis¬ 
tinct  setbacks  to  the  dissemination  of  the  new  edition. 
In  January,  1592,  after  the  death  of  a  number  of 
popes,  Clement  VIII  occupied  the  pontifical  seat. 
Having  called  in  the  Sixtine  edition  of  the  Vulgate, 
he  published  another  official  edition,  claiming  as  a 
pretext  that  Sixtus  V  had  intended  both  to  recall  the 
1590  edition  because  of  its  many  typographical  er¬ 
rors,  and  to  issue  another  in  its  place,  but  death  had 
prevented  it.  In  reality,  his  claim  was  only  a  pre¬ 
text,  for  the  Sixtine  edition  had  been  carefully  printed 
and  published.  The  reasons  for  the  publication  of 
the  Clementine  text  of  1592  are  thought  to  have  been 
either  hostility  to  the  author  of  the  1590  edition  or 
a  desire  to  produce  a  more  faithful  text  as  authorized 


1 74  The  Old  Latm  and  the  Vulgate 

by  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  text  of  this  new  edi¬ 
tion  of  1592  contains  about  three  thousand  variations 
from  that  of  1590,  and  leans  toward  the  text  issued 
privately  by  Hentenius  in  1547.  H.  J.  White  (Has¬ 
tings’  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  iv.  p.  881)  concedes 
the  superiority  of  the  Clementine  text.  Pope  Clem¬ 
ent  VIII  avoided  the  penalties  of  the  Sixtine  edition 
preface  by  inserting  on  the  title  page  the  name  of 
Sixtus  V,  thus  in  reality  issuing  it  as  a  new  Sixtine 
edition.  After  1604  Clement’s  name  appears  on  the 
title  page  conjointly  with  that  of  Sixtus  V.  This 
Clementine  Vulgate  of  1592  is  to-day  the  standard 
edition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church.  The  few 
modern  editions  that  have  been  issued  contain  slight 
variations  only  from  this  Clementine  text  of  1592. 
Hetzenauer  has  published  an  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  Vulgate  (1899)  that  correctly  represents 
its  great  predecessor,  the  Clementine  text. 

137.  The  importance  of  the  Vulgate  in  the  history 
of  Bible  translations  and  of  the  church  cannot  be  over- 
estimiated.  It  has  occupied  the  first  place  in  the 
Rom.an  church  since  the  sixth  century.  It  was  early 
carried  to  England  and  was  the  basis  of  the  Chris¬ 
tianity  that  took  such  deep  root  in  that  rich  soil. 
Charlemagne  made  it  his  personal  duty  to  scatter  it 
far  and  wide  in  his  realm.  The  monks  of  the  middle 
ages  multiplied  its  copies  by  the  hundreds,  so  that 
manuscripts  reaching  into  the  thousands  are  found 
in  numerous  private  and  public  libraries  of  Europe 
and  the  Orient.  The  invention  of  printing  began  to 


175 


Critical  Text  of  the  Vulgate 

fix  certain  texts,  and  the  process  culminated  in  the 
Clementine  edition  of  1592,  the  official  Bible  of  the 
Roman  church.  The  first  English  Bible — that  of 
Wycliffe — was  translated  from  the  Vulgate.  This  ver¬ 
sion  was  the  basis  of  the  Rheims  and  Douai  transla¬ 
tion  of  1582-1610,  the  official  English  Bible  of  the 
Roman  church.  There  were  later  revisions  of  this 
version  under  the  care  of  Challoner  (1750  and  later), 
of  the  Douai  institution,  and  of  archbishop  Troy 
(1791  and  after),  of  Dublin.  These  editions  were 
current  in  Great  Britain  about  1800.  Slightly  variant 
editions  of  these  have  held  the  field  of  the  Roman 
church  in  America  down  to  the  present  day. 

138.  Protestant  scholars  have  expended  long 
years  in  an  attempt  to  construct  a  critical  text  of 
Jerome’s  Latin.  They  have  carefully  studied  and 
collated  thousands  of  manuscripts,  and  many  printed 
editions  that  thereby  they  may  ascertain  the  original 
of  that  great  version.  Some  of  the  most  active  in 
this  research  have  been  Richard  Bentley,  in  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century;  Bishop  Wordsworth  and  H.  J.  White, 
in  the  nineteenth  century — all  in  England ;  Samuel 
Berger,  in  Paris,  France,  and  P.  Corssen,  in  Berlin, 
Germany.  The  contributions  of  these  five  scholars 
are  monumental.  The  prosecution  of  just  such  work 
by  many  other  devoted  students  of  the  multitude  of 
manuscripts  now  available  will  go  far  to  ascertain 
the  original  version  of  the  revered  scholar,  Jerome. 


CHAPTER  XVI 


THE  SYRIAC  AND  OTHER  EASTERN  VERSIONS 

139.  The  Syriac  Old  Testament  occupied  our  at¬ 
tention  in  Chapter  VIII.  One  of  the  first  require¬ 
ments  of  the  Syrian  converts  to  Christianity  was  an 
edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  their  native  tongue. 
Just  how  early  it  was  made  is  not  known.  Indeed, 
there  are  many  questions  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
Syriac  New  Testament  which  still  remain  unanswered. 
This  chapter  can  give  only  in  outline  some  of  the 
most  interesting  points  in  the  discussion. 

The  easiest  method  of  presenting  the  facts  regard¬ 
ing  the  earlier  Syriac  texts  will  be  to  take  up  the 
usual  divisions  of  the  New  Testament  one  at  a  time. 

The  Gospels. — The  earliest  editions  of  the  Gospels 
in  Syriac  that  are  now  known  to  biblical  scholars  are 
(i)  the  ‘‘ Diatessaron  ”  of  Tatian;  (2)  the  Old  Syriac 
Version  or  “Gospel  of  the  Separated;”  and  (3)  the 
“  Peshitta.”  Just  when,  where,  how,  and  why  these 
versions  came  to  be,  are  the  puzzling  questions  that 
confront  us.  The  existence  of  some  of  these  texts 
was  not  known  in  Europe  until  the  sixteenth  century. 
Some  of  them  have  even  come  to  light  within  the  last 
seventy-five  years,  showing  us  that  there  is  still  a 
great  branch  of  biblical  literature  comparatively  un¬ 
known  and  uncultivated. 

176 


177 


The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian 

(i)  The  earliest  version  of  the  Syriac  Gospels 
current  in  the  early  centuries  of  Christianity 
was  the  so-called  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  who  was  a 
pupil  of  Justin  Martyr  (martyred  about  165).  This 
Diatessaron  was  a  composite  Gospel  based  on  the 
four  Gospels,  to  which  the  Syrian  church  became  so 
wedded  that  the  bishops  in  the  fifth  century  took  vig¬ 
orous  steps  to  get  rid  of  it.  They  were  apparently 
entirely  successful,  for  there  is  no  known  copy  of 
this  Syriac  Diatessaron  in  existence  to-day.  Our 
chief  authorities  for  the  text  of  it  are  (a)  the  Arabic 
translation  of  it,  of  which  there  are  two  manuscripts 
in  Rome,  and  (b)  the  commentary  of  Ephraem  Syrus 
(died  373),  found  only  in  an  Armenian  translation. 
A  few  quotations  of  this  Syriac  Diatessaron  are  found 
in  some  Syriac  commentaries  on  the  Gospels, — enough 
to  indicate  somewhat  the  character  of  the  version. 

140.  (2)  The  second  version  of  the  Syriac  Gos¬ 

pels  used  in  the  early  church  was  the  “  Gospel  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Separated  (Evangelists),’’  according  to 
Burkitt’s  rendering  (Ency.  Biblica,  col.  4999).  This 
Version  is  known  to-day  in  two  codices:  (a)  The 
manuscript  found  at  the  Convent  of  St.  Mary  Deipara 
in  the  Nitrian  Desert  in  1842-47,  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  and  published  by  Cureton  in  1858,  and  since 
known  as  the  “Curetonian  Syriac.”  (b)  The  palimp¬ 
sest  discovered  at  the  Convent  of  St.  Catharine  at 
Mt.  Sinai  by  Mrs.  Lewis  in  1892,  and  only  par¬ 
tially  transcribed  in  the  next  year  by  Messrs.  Bensly, 
Harris  and  Burkitt.  The  “  Cureton  ”  text  is  assigned 


178  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and  contains  the 
Gospels  with  many  omissions  in  the  order  of  Mat¬ 
thew,  Mark,  John,  and  Luke.  The  Sinai  palimpsest 
is  thought  to  be  a  half  century  older  than  the  “  Cure- 
ton.’’  Its  contents  are  about  three-quarters  of  the 
whole  material,  and  supplement  “  Cureton,”  and  par¬ 
allel  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  us  a  reasonably 
good  text,  with  variations,  of  course,  of  the  “  Old 
Syriac.” 

(3)  The  Peshitta,  “  the  simple,”  version  of  the 
New  Testament  has  been  in  use  in  the  Syrian  church 
continuously  from  the  fifth  century.  This  name, 
however,  is  not  traced  farther  back  than  the  ninth 
century.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  name  arose 
in  order  to  distinguish  the  Syriac  version  proper  from 
that  version  translated  from  Origen’s  Hexapla  by 
Paul  of  Telia  (§70). 

This  version  is  extant  in  some  manuscripts  that  are 
dated  in  the  fifth  century.  These  manuscripts  differ 
slightly,  however,  from  the  texts  of  modern  editions. 
The  first  printed  edition  was  issued  in  Vienna,  1555,  at 
the  expense  of  the  emperor,  Ferdinand  I,  by  Albert 
Widmanstad.  The  latest  and  best  edition  appeared  at 
Oxford,  1901,  edited  by  Pusey  and  Gwilliam.  West- 
cott  and  Hort  called  this  version  the  “  Syriac  Vul¬ 
gate.” 

Each  new  discovery  of  Syriac  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels  has  shifted  the  discussion  as  to  the  relation 
of  these  three  versions.  Burkitt  (Ency.  Biblica) 
now  concludes,  though  all  scholars  do  not  agree  with 


179 


Old  Syriac  Epistles 

him,  that  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  was  the  original 
form  in  which  the  Gospel  circulated  in  Syria.  The 

Gospel  according  to  the  Separated,”  that  is,  the  sec¬ 
ond  early  Syriac  Version,  is  supposed  to  have  been 
translated  from  the  Greek  about  the  year  200. 
The  third  of  the  three  early  versions,  the  Peshitta,  is 
regarded  as  an  edition  of  the  “  Gospel  according  to 
the  Separated,”  “  revised  in  closer  conformity  with 
the  Greek,”  and  published  with  authority,  probably  in 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  (41 1  A.  D.),  with 
the  purpose  of  superseding  both  the  Diatessaron 
and  all  other  Syriac  texts.  Both  of  those  purposes 
were  accomplished  with  such  thoroughness  that  no 
Syriac  version  of  the  Diatessaron,  and  only  two  copies 
of  the  “  Gospel  according  to  the  Separated,”  or  Old 
Syriac,  are  known  to-day. 

141.  The  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  Up  to  the  pres¬ 
ent  time  there  is  no  manuscript  or  even  text  of  the 
so-called  “  Old  Syriac,”  of  the  Acts  and  the  Paul¬ 
ine  Epistles.  There  is  no  doubt  that  there  was  such 
a  version,  for  it  is  distinctly  confirmed  in  the  quo¬ 
tations  of  Aphraates,  and  in  the  commentaries  of 
Ephraem.  These  letters  are  current  only  in  an  Arme¬ 
nian  translation,  for  the  supremacy  of  the  Peshitta 
must  have  forced  out  of  use  all  rival  Syriac  texts. 
These  portions  of  the  New  Testament  arc  found, 
however,  in  the  Peshitta  version.  The  Gospels  and 
the  Acts  and  Epistles  formed  the  entire  New  Testa¬ 
ment  of  the  early  Syriac  church. 

The  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,  therefore, 


i8o  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

were  not  found  in  the  Old  Syriac  version.  Addai 
gives  orders  as  follows :  “  The  Law  and  the  Proph¬ 
ets  ..  .  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  .  .  .  and 
the  Acts  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  .  .  .  these  books 
read  ye  in  the  churches  of  Christ,  and  with  these 
read  not  any  other,  as  there  is  not  any  other,  in  which 
the  truth  that  ye  hold  is  written  ”  (quoted  by  Nestle 
in  Hastings’  Diet,  of  Bible,  Vol.  iv.  p.  647.)  It  is 
regarded  as  fixed  that  the  Syriac  canon  in  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century  contained  neither  the  Catholic 
Epistles  nor  the  Apocalypse. 

A  list  of  the  canonical  books  recently  discovered 
at  Mt.  Sinai  gives  an  arrangement  that  differs  from 
that  in  the  Peshitta.  We  find  here  Galatians  at  the 
head  of  Paul’s  letters  as  follows :  Galatians,  Corinth¬ 
ians,  Romans,  then  Hebrews.  Ephraem  seems  to  have 
had  the  same  order.  Another  interesting  item  in 
Ephraem’s  day  is  that  the  church  at  Edessa  had  in 
its  canon  of  the  Bible  the  “  Apocryphal  Correspond¬ 
ence  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Corinthians,”  which  is  now 
known  to  have  belonged  to  the  Acta  Pauli.  It  is  now 
certain  that  the  four  Antilegomena  of  the  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  were  never  a  part  of 
the  Peshitta  and  never  appeared  in  a  printed  edition 
of  the  Syriac  New  Testament  until  1630. 

142.  The  Peshitta  was  the  supreme  version  in  the 
Syriac  churches  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  since  the 
Nestorian  schism  (about  431)  has  continued  to 
be  the  New  Testament  of  that  body  of  believers. 
The  Jacobite  branch  of  the  Syrian  church,  on  the 


Revisions  of  the  Syriac  Bible  i8i 

other  hand,  was  not  satisfied  with  the  current  authori¬ 
tative  version.  There  were  at  least  two  attempts 
to  carry  over  into  the  Syriac  canon  the  full  list  of 
books  found  in  the  Greek  New  Testament,  and  used 
by  the  Greek-speaking  churches. 

The  first  attempt  to  revise  th'e  Peshitta  was  made 
in  508,  by  Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Mabbogh  (485-519) 
in  Eastern  Syria,  with  the  assistance  of  Polycarp. 
They  endeavored  to  translate  the  whole  Bible  into 
Syriac.  Authorities  disagree  as  to  whether  any  of 
this  version  is  still  extant,  though  the  versions  of  2 
Peter,  2  and  3  John,  and  Jude,  that  are  now  bound 
up  with  the  Peshitta  are  thought  to  owe  their  origin 
to  Philoxenus.  A  manuscript  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
this  version  was  discovered  by  Gwynn  and  published 
in  1897. 

The  Philoxenian  version  of  the  New  Testament 
was  revised  in  616  by  Thomas  of  Heraklea  (Harkel) 
in  Mesopotamia,  and  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Paul 
of  Telia  (compare  §70).  This  translation  is  ex¬ 
cessively  literal  and  well  supplied  with  critical  notes. 
The  work  of  Thomas  of  Heraklea  was  based  on  some 
Greek  manuscripts  found  in  Alexandria,  and  the 
notes  contain  important  variants  in  some  of  these 
documents.  Apparently  the  Greek  manuscripts  used 
by  Thomas  were  late,  and  belong  to  the  Western  type. 

Some  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Harkleian  version 
lay  claim  to  a  considerable  antiquity.  There  are  at 
least  thirty-six  of  them.  Two  in  the  British  Museum 
date  from  the  tenth  century.  Cambridge  University 


1 82  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

has  one  dated  1170.  Rome  has  one  of  the  seventh 
and  one  of  the  eighth  century.  Florence  has  one 
dated  757.  Both  of  these  revisions  contained  all  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  Apocalypse. 

Though  there  is  scarcely  a  Syriac  manuscript  in  all 
Europe  that  contains  the  twenty-seven  books  of  the 
present  New  Testament,  there  are  some  manuscripts 
which  contain  books  not  found  in  our  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament.  Codex  1700  in  Cambridge  University  library 
contains  “  The  Epistles  of  St.  Clement  to  the  Corinth¬ 
ians  in  Syriac.”  These  Epistles  stand  between  the 
Catholic  and  Pauline  Epistles,  and  have  the  same  nota¬ 
tions  for  use  in  church  services.  Other  manuscripts 
contain  Clement’s  de  Virginibus,  or  de  Virginitate. 
These  instances  show  the  unique  development  of  the 
Syriac  church  and  scholarship. 

143.  The  above  noted  versions  complete  the  genu¬ 
ine  Syriac  texts  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is 
another  fragmentary  version,  however,  that  is  classi¬ 
fied  as  Syriac,  on  about  the  same  grounds  that  the 
Targums  are  counted  as  Hebrew.  The  Aramaic  lan¬ 
guage  is  divided  into  the  classical  Edessene,  or  East¬ 
ern  Aramaic,  and  the  Western  Aramaic,  covering 
Jewish  Aramaic,  Samaritan,  etc.  This  version  is  used 
by  the  Malkite  (Greek)  church  in  Palestine  and  Egypt. 
It  was  discovered  in  a  Eectionary  in  the  Vatican 
library,  and  described  by  Assemani  and  Adler  (1789), 
and  published  in  two  volumes  by  Count  Erizzo  (1861- 
64),  and  by  Prof.  Lagarde  (1892).  Those  two  learned 
English  women  already  referred  to,  Mrs.  Lewis  and 


aMb  'cuci^SaS  5aa:t<ii- 


cuctf 


*  ,’ir^'cEV3'if<i-»,;]f' <x2j>'i<^  5^Si***i**«*.Q^  \r* 

’^^*0cr3JA5^<?Sr3i*3^<5(^iRCuA^f 

JAX--o<acn  >J>^^^n■^ 

<^^r<W.rir3lr» 

®^^^J^x5MCa3  «X5j  VwPk»Cc7i; 

r-tea  Ji^CUni^j;jjSi^^  TSiat 

•OjoA,rt!Sla  ».A«7i.-.i4Tfl£«t^^ 

e^=W  :to-93W*:^=rAc7^4«»<^*?»^^ 

r 


'^\t< 


Jex  of  the  Old  Syriac  Oos])els  over  wliicli  was  written  in  A.  I).  778  a 
narrative  of  tlie  Holy  Women.  Found  at  Convent  of 


The  Egyptian  Versions  183 

Mrs.  Gibson,  republished  (1899)  the  known  fragments 
of  the  Gospels  on  the  basis  of  two  new  manuscripts 
found  at  Mt.  Sinai.  Fragments  of  Acts  and  the  Epis¬ 
tles  of  Paul,  with  James  and  Hebrews  have  also  been 
added  to  the  known  fragments  of  this  version. 

The  relation  of  the  fragments  of  the  so-called  Pal¬ 
estinian  version  or  Jerusalem  Syriac,  to  the  other 
Syriac  versions  is  apparent.  It  contains  a  text  that 
has  been  influenced  by  the  Peshitta,  but  follows  quite 
faithfully  the  Greek  text.  It  is  thought  to  have  arisen 
in  the  sixth  century,  when  an  attempt  was  made  by 
Justinian  to  root  out  the  Samaritan  beliefs  and  re¬ 
place  them  by  supplying  a  version  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  in  the  vernacular  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine.  It 
is  even  asserted  by  some  scholars  that  the  language 
of  this  version  is  probably  closely  identified  with  that 
spoken  by  the  peoples  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of 
Christ. 

144.  The  Egyptian  or  Coptic  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  noticed  in  §83.  The  three  branches 
of  the  Egyptian  versions  of  the  New  Testament  are 
(i)  the  Sahidic,  or  dialect  of  upper  Egypt;  (2)  the 
dialect  of  middle  Egypt,  as  seen  in  the  Fayyum ;  (3) 
the  dialect  of  Alexandria,  the  Bohairic. 

The  Sahidic  was  the  dialect  of  the  Christian  com¬ 
munity  whose  headquarters  was  at  Thebes.  At  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century  (1799)  Woide  published 
the  known  fragments  of  the  Sahidic  New  Testament. 
Within  recent  years  large  numbers  of  fragments  have 
been  discovered,  almost  enough  to  complete  the  New 


184  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

Testament.  Some  of  these  reach  back  to  the  fifth 
and  possibly  to  the  fourth  century.  They  are  very 
numerous  in  Paris,  and  when  critically  edited  will 
form  a  useful  apparatus  in  determining  the  character 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament  from  which  they  were 
translated,  somewhere  back  in  the  fourth  century. 

The  second  Coptic  dialect  is  the  Bohairic,  the  primi¬ 
tive  Christian  language  of  lower  Egypt  after  the  de¬ 
cline  and  disappearance  of  the  Greek  in  the  early 
Christian  centuries.  Its  central  city  and  home  was  at 
first  Alexandria,  and  afterwards  Memphis,  hence  this 
dialect  has  been  called,  though  improperly,  Memphitic. 
This  was  the  literary  language  of  Alexandria,  express¬ 
ing  with  remarkable  precision  such  ideas  as  may  be 
translated  from  the  Greek.  While  its  age  relative 
to  the  Sahidic  is  in  dispute,  Burkitt  (Ency.  Bibl.,  col. 
5008)  and  many  others  are  convinced  of  its  late  ori¬ 
gin.  Its  artistically  complete  language  rapidly  gave 
it  supremacy  throughout  all  Egypt,  so  that  “  Coptic  ” 
to-day  means  the  “  Bohairic  ”  dialect.  The  oldest 
known  codices  of  this  tongue  that  can  be  certainly 
dated  belong  to  the  twelfth  century,  though  there 
are  some  fragments  that  reach  back  to  the  ninth  (888J. 
Of  the  Coptic  dialects,  the  Bohairic  is  the  only  one 
which  preserves  a  complete  New  Testament.  Of  this 
version  Horner  issued  Vol.  I,  the  Gospels,  in  London, 
1898.  Burkitt  describes  the  peculiarities  of  the  Bo¬ 
hairic  as  (i)  greater  faithfulness  to  the  Greek;  (2)  a 
different  choice  of  Greek  words  to  be  transliterated ; 
(3)  when  it  has  a  different  Greek  reading  from 


The  Armenian  Version  185 

others,  it  is  almost  always  a  specifically  “  Alexan¬ 
drian  ”  reading. 

Both  Sahidic  and  Bohairic  carry  the  full  Greek 
canon  of  the  New  Testament,  though  the  Apocalypse 
seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  non-canonical,  for  it 
is  not  part  of  these  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  existence  of  an  Egyptian  version  occupying  a 
place  midway  between  the  Sahidic  and  Bohairic  is 
fully  established.  This  seems  to  have  been  current 
In  the  Fayyum,  just  west  and  southwest  of  Memphis 
and  south  of  the  delta.  Large  numbers  of  manu¬ 
scripts  from  this  district  have  reached  Europe  in  re¬ 
cent  years.  When  these  shall  have  been  carefully 
edited,  and  a  new  text  of  the  Sahidic  New  Testament 
published,  we  shall  know  where  the  Fayyumic  version 
stands  in  the  Coptic  group. 

145.  The  Armenian  version  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  originated  somewhere  about  400  A.  D.  The 
earliest  translations  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles 
into  Armenian  were  made  from  the  Syriac,  not  from 
the  Peshitta,  but  from  the  Old  Syriac.  About  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  this  translation  was  so 
thoroughly  revised  by  the  use  of  a  Greek  text  that  we 
can  scarcely  recognize  at  its  base,  the  first  text.  This 
Greek  text  was  probably  that  of  the  Vatican  and  Sinai- 
tic,  or  one  closely  related  to  them. 

Armenian  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  usually  lack 
Mark  16:  9-20.  Those  that  contain  these  verses  have 
a  break  after  16:  8,  in  which  the  colophon,  “Gospel 
of  Mark,”  is  inserted,  and  it  appears  again  after 


1 86  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

i6:  20.  One  manuscript,  dated  989  A.  D.,  contains 
the  doubtful  verses,  with  a  heading  ascribing  them  to 
the  presbyter  Aristion.  It  is  thought  that  the  scribe 
of  the  manuscript  had  authority  for  attributing  the 
story  of  the  resurrection  to  the  presbyter  who  added 
it  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  This  same  manuscript  like¬ 
wise,  among  all  old  Armenian  manuscripts,  is  the  only 
one  that  contains  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery  (John  8:  i-ii).  The  oldest  manuscript  of 
the  Armenian  version  is  dated  887  A.  D.,  and  two 
others  belong  to  the  same  century,  while  a  half-dozen 
originated  in  the  tenth  century. 

The  best  critical  edition  of  the  Armenian  version  is 
that  of  Zohrab  (Venice,  1789). 

146.  The  Ethiopic  or  Ge’ez  version  is  that  used  by 
the  Abyssinians.  While  Christianity  secured  a  foot¬ 
hold  in  this  country  as  early  as  the  fourth  century,  the 
Ethiopic  version  probably  does  not  reach  back  beyond 
the  fifth  century.  There  are  traces  of  an  older  Ethi¬ 
opic  version  of  the  Gospels  made  from  the  Old  Syriac, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  Armenian  version.  But  the 
version  now  current  was  made  from  the  Greek.  There 
are  many  manuscripts  of  a  late  date,  representing 
later  revisions,  which  were  made  from  the  mediaeval 
Arabic  text  current  in  Alexandria.  The  Ethiopic  New 
Testament  was  first  printed  in  Rome  in  1548-9,  and 
was  reprinted  in  Walton’s  Polyglot.  The  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  issued  (1830)  an  edition  that 
had  been  prepared  by  T.  P.  Platt.  This  was  reprinted 
at  Basle  in  1874.  It  has  no  critical  value  for 


Gothic  Gospels  (§§  85,  147) 
Mark  7  :  3-7 


The  Gothic  Version 


187 


scholars.  But  it  is  ascertained  at  least  that  it  is 
related  to  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  manuscripts  in  the 
type  of  text.  It  is  colored  also  by  Alexandrian  and 
Western  elements.  These,  however,  cannot  be  cor¬ 
rectly  estimated  until  we  shall  have  a  critical  text. 

147.  The  Gothic  version  prepared  by  Ulfilas  has 
already  been  referred  to  in  §85.  The  New  Testa¬ 
ment  fragments  of  this  translation  show  that  it  was 
made  directly  from  the  Greek.  The  remnants  that 
we  possess  seem  to  have  belonged  to  northern  Italy, 
somewhere  about  the  time  of  the  Lombard  conquest 
in  the  sixth  century.  The  largest  fragments  that  we 
possess  are  portions  of  the  Gospels  preserved  in  a 
superb  manuscript  at  Upsala,  Sweden,  written  upon 
purple  vellum  in  letters  of  silver  and  gold,  and  dating 
from  the  sixth  century.  Portions  of  the  Pauline  Epis¬ 
tles  are  found  on  a  palimpsest  in  Milan.  The  re¬ 
mainder  of  the  New  Testament  is  lost.  The  Greek 
text  from  which  Ulfilas  made  his  New  Testament 
translation  was  mainly  of  the  so-called  Syrian  type. 
Westcott  and  Hort  (N.  T.,  vol.  i,  p.  158)  conclude 
in  these  words :  “  The  Gothic  has  very  much  the  same  - 
combination  as  the  Italian  revision  of  the  Old  Latin, 
being  largely  Syrian  and  largely  Western,  with  a  small 
admixture  of  non-Western  readings.” 

148.  There  are  several  other  versions  that  may  be 
mentioned  by  name  only.  The  Arabic  versions  of  the 
New  Testament  have  been  made,  some  from  the 
Syriac  and  some  from  the  Greek,  in  the  eighth  and 
ninth  centuries.  The  current  Arabic  New  Testament 


1 88  The  Syriac  and  Other  Versions 

is  a  translation  in  the  main  from  the  Bohairic  dialect, 
with  corrections  and  additions  from  the  Greek  and 
Syriac. 

The  Georgian  New  Testament  was  translated  from 
the  Greek,  but  at  so  late  a  period  as  to  be  of  slight 
critical  value.  The  Slavonic  version  exists  in  a 
goodly  number  of  manuscripts.  The  New  Testament 
is  preserved  both  in  manuscripts  and  in  Lectionaries. 
These  do  not  seem  to  reach  back  earlier  than  the 
eleventh  century.  While  the  best  text  of  the  Sla¬ 
vonic  or  Russian  points  to  a  Greek-text  basis,  that 
basis  does  not  contain  the  readings  of  the  oldest  and 
best  manuscripts.  Hence  this  version  has  no  con¬ 
siderable  value  as  a  critical  aid  in  determining  the 
original  readings  of  the  New  Testament. 

No  other  versions  of  the  New  Testament  are  of 
sufficient  value  to  deserve  mention  at  this  point. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


GROUPING  AND  CLASSIFICATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 
VERSIONS,  AND  OTHER  WITNESSES 

149.  As  soon  as  modern  scholars  began  to  com¬ 
pare  different  manuscripts,  and  to  note  the  variations 
of  each  from  the  other  they  were  obliged  to  adopt 
some  one  text  as  a  standard.  This  necessity  brought 
about  the  adoption  of  what  has  been  known  as  the 
“received  text,”  or  “Textus  Receptus.” 

The  earliest  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament  was  that  incorporated  in  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  printed  in  1514-17  and  published  in  1522.  Its 
text,  however,  was  based  on  many  manuscripts,  put 
at  the  disposal  of  Cardinal  Ximenes  by  the  papal  au¬ 
thorities  at  Rome.  Erasmus,  the  Dutch  scholar,  was 
the  editor  of  the  first  Greek  New  Testament  pub¬ 
lished  (1516).  His  text  was  based  chiefly  on  two 
inferior  manuscripts,  preserved  in  Basle,  Switzerland, 
one  of  the  Gospels,  and  one  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epis¬ 
tles,  and  only  one  manuscript  of  the  Apocalypse.  None 
of  them  was  complete,  so  that  Erasmus  was  obliged 
to  translate  Latin  into  Greek  to  fill  up  lacunai  in  the 
Apocalypse.  The  first  edition  was  full  of  errors ;  but 
it  was  quickly  succeeded  by  a  second,  third,  fourth,  and 
fifth,  each  presenting  a  better  text  than  its  predeces¬ 
sor,  though  Erasmus  never  had  more  than  eight  manu¬ 
scripts  at  his  disposal. 


189 


190  Classification  of  Manuscripts 

The  famous  printer  and  scholar,  Robert  Stephanus 
(or  Estienne),  of  Paris,  published  several  editions 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament.  His  text  was  based 
on  Erasmus  (editions  of  1527  and  1535),  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot,  and  fifteen  manuscripts  in  the 
Paris  library.  The  third  edition,  a  Paris  folio,  issued 
in  1550,  is  practically  the  “  Textus  Receptus of  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  which  has  held  its  place  in 
England  from  that  day  to  this.  The  “  Textus  Recep- 
tus  ’’  on  the  continent  has  been  the  Elzevir  edition 
printed  at  Leyden  in  1624.  It  was  based  on  Ste¬ 
phanus,  revised  by  the  use  of  texts  published  by  Beza 
in  1565-1611.  The  name  “Received  Text”  is  due 
to  a  statement  in  the  preface  to  the  second  Elzevir 
edition,  1633,  where  it  is  claimed  that  this  is  the  text 
now  “  received  by  all.” 

The  period  of  the  dominion  of  the  “  Textus  Recep- 
tus  ”  extends  from  the  Reformation  down  to  the  mid¬ 
dle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Its  text  then  is  that  of 
Erasmus  (based  on  eight  manuscripts),  improved  by 
Stephanus  (on  basis  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  ! 
and  fifteen  manuscripts)  and  Beza  as  printed  in  Eng¬ 
land.  On  the  continent  the  Elzevir  edition  based  on 
Erasmus  and  Stephanus  constitutes  the  “  Textus  Re-  > 
ceptus.” 

Scrivener  republished  the  “Textus  Receptus  ”  at 
Cambridge  in  1859;  and  a  new  edition  (1877)  with 
variations  of  Beza  (1565),  of  the  Elzevir  edition 
(1624),  of  Lachmann,  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles. 

150.  It  is  plainly  evident  that  such  a  text,  based 


Codex  Bezac  (D)  (?  123).  Fifth  or  Sixth  Century 
Luke  6  :  i-o 


■  t  ^  :r  - 


Classification  of  Manuscripts  19 1 

on  a  few  comparatively  late  manuscripts,  was  not 
likely  to  be  a  very  exact  reproduction  of  the  original 
autographs  of  the  New  Testament.  As  the  years 
went  by  manuscripts  of  earlier  dates  were  discovered 
on  every  hand.  Documents  reaching  back  to  the 
sixth,  fifth  and  even  fourth  century  were  brought  to 
light.  They  stood  several  centuries  nearer  the  orig¬ 
inals  than  any  of  those  that  formed  the  basis  of  the 
“  Textus  Receptus.’’  Necessarily  there  would  grow  up 
a  dissatisfaction  with  the  basing  of  so  important  a 
work  on  such  defective  sources.  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Tregelles,  Scrivener  and  others  had  paved  the 
way  for  the  construction  of  a  new  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  based  on  the  latest  and  best  evidence. 
When  Westcott  and  Hort  began  their  work  they  had 
some  severe  opposition.  The  “  Textus  Receptus  ”  had 
won  almost  a  sacred  place  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of 
some  of  the  biblical  scholars  of  the  day.  To  set  this 
aside,  required  a  bold,  heroic  move.  But  it  was  done, 
and  done  in  a  scholarly,  loyal  and  Christian  manner. 

The  great  mass  of  Greek  New  Testament  manu¬ 
script  material  at  their  disposal  for  the  work  they 
had  in  hand  complicated  their  problem.  Their  first 
task  was  to  find  out  just  what  available  manuscripts 
were  of  sufficient  importance  to  form  a  basis  for  a 
grouping  or  classification.  They  built  more  or  less 
on  previous  classifications,  but  outstripped  all  other 
critics  “  in  tracing  the  transcriptional  history  of  the 
text  and  in  the  application  of  the  genealogical  method 
as  the  only  way  to  rise  up  to  the  autographic  fountain- 


192  Classification  of  Manuscripts 

head  ”  (Schaff,  p.  271).  After  carefully  noting  their 
characteristics  and  value,  they  decided  to  classify  the 
documents,  irrespective  of  any  printed  editions,  into 
four  great  groups:  (i)  the  Syrian  or  Antiochian;  (2) 
the  Western;  (3)  the  Alexandrian;  and  (4)  thje 
Neutral. 

151.  The  Syrian  group.  The  early  church  fathers, 
such  as  Clement,  Origen,  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  have 
embodied  numerous  New  Testament  quotations  in 
their  writings,  but  none  is  a  certain  representative  of 
Dr.  Hort’s  so-called  Syrian  Greek  (or  Graeco- Syrian) 
text.  It  seems  to  have  been  produced  by  the  Greek 
and  Syrian  church  fathers  at  about  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century.  Dr.  Hort  maintains  that  the  so-called^ 
Syrian  readings  have  been  the  result  of  combining 
non-Syrian  readings ;  in  other  words,  the  Syrian 
group  is  representative  of  a  text  that  originated  in  a 
revision  of  existing  texts  in  the  vicinity  of  Antioch 
in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  This  text 
then  originated  later  than  those  of  the  other  groups, 
and  consequently  is  not  of  equal  authority  with  them. 
The  uncial  Codex  A  (§§  118,  119)  is  a  good  repre¬ 
sentative,  in  the  Gospels,  as  is  the  Syriac  Peshitta  (as 
revised).  Chrysostom,  archbishop  of  Constantinople 
(died  407)  made  use  of  it  in  his  extensive  homiletical 
works.  The  later  Greek  fathers,  including  even  the 
great  biblical  scholar,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (died 
429)  made  liberal  quotations  from  this  text.  The 
large  mass  of  cursive  Greek  manuscripts  (mainly 
written  in  Constantinople)  also  belong  to  this  group. 


Bishop  B.  F.  Westcott 


n 


■%. 


-‘A"-./ 

-  ’■;>'k' • 


#■  • 


~  fi  '■ 


I 


/ 


>  •-I'ti  y- 

'■yr  ..• 


'V;;S_ 


"  '  iif! .  ^ 


'■rff- 


'-.S'*' 


V 


V 


193 


The  Western  Group 

Finally  it  is  the  text  which  is  largely  reproduced  in 
the  “  Textus  Receptus.”  “  It  is  an  eclectic  text,  which 
absorbs  and  combines  readings  from  the  early  texts 
of  dilferent  lands’’  (Schaff,  p.  272). 

152.  The  Western  group,  so-called,  but  inappro¬ 
priately,  is  made  up  of  that  body  of  texts  which  have 
been  handled  with  great  freedom.  “  Words,  clauses, 
and  even  whole  sentences,  were  changed,  omitted,  and 
inserted  with  astonishing  freedom,  whenever  it  seemed 
that  the  meaning  could  be  brought  out  with  greater 
force  and  definiteness”  (Hort.  vol.  2,  p.  122).  This  text 
seems  to  be  most  readily  recognized  in  the  Old  Latin 
version,  and  in  the  bilingual  uncials  which  were  writ¬ 
ten  in  the  West  (cf.  D  §123).  This  text  seems  to 
have  had  its  origin  very  early,  before  the  copying  of 
a  text  was  done  with  adequate  care,  before  it  was  re¬ 
garded  as  wrong  to  interpolate,  expand,  contract,  or 
omit  at  will  such  passages  as  to  the  scribes  seemed 
best.  The  Greek  text  used  by  the  ante-Nicene  fathers, 
where  they  did  not  come  into  contact  with  Egypt,  was 
Western.  These  manuscripts  contain  many  old  and 
important  readings,  but  the  critic  must  carefully 
weigh  every  item  of  evidence  before  he  can  feel  free 
to  adopt  them.  Every  mark  of  the  characteristic 
license  taken  by  the  writers  of  this  text  must  be  purged 
ere  it  can  be  used  as  an  authority.  The  scribes 
exercised  the  same  freedom  in  their  handling  of  the 
Western  text  as  they  had  done  in  such  “  post-apostolic 
writings,  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  and  the  Ignatian  Epistles.”  Therefore  the 


194  Classification  of  Manuscripts 

care  exercised  by  critics  had  to  be  scrupulous  and  far- 
reaching. 

153.  The  Alexandrian  group  or  text  is  found  in 
great  abundance  in  the  New  Testament  quotations  of 
the  church  fathers  of  Alexandria,  such  as  Clement, 
Origen,  Dionysius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius  in 
part,  and  the  Memphitic  branch  of  the  Coptic  version. 
These  readings  are  quite  distinct  from  either  the 
Syrian  or  the  Western  texts.  They  present  a  clean- 
cut  Greek  scholarship,  such  as  might  be  expected  to 
emanate  from  Alexandria,  as  a  center  of  Greek  learn¬ 
ing.  There  is  an  entire  absence  of  such  extraneous 
additions  as  one  finds  in  texts  that  have  been  treated 
like  those  of  the  Western  group.  There  is  still,  how¬ 
ever,  a  lack  of  those  elements  that  would  designate 
this  as  one  of  the  earliest  forms  of  the  text. 

154.  The  Neutral  group  is  the  purest  text  extant. 
It  is  almost  entirely  free  from  corruption  and  mixture 
with  other  texts,  and  is  thought  to  represent  the  near¬ 
est  approach,  at  the  present  time,  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  autographs.  Its  best  representative  is  Codex 
Vaticanus  (B),  lacking  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the 
Apocalypse,  and  four .  chapters  of  Hebrews,  and  its 
second  best  is  Codex  Sinaiticus  (S)  which  contains 
the  whole  New  Testament.  These  two  codices,  the  old¬ 
est  and  best  extant,  were  apparently  derived  inde¬ 
pendently  from  a  common  original,  at  no  great  dis¬ 
tance  from  the  autographs.  When  the  readings  of 
these  two  texts  agree,  their  evidence  is  conclusive 
against  overwhelming  numerical  evidence  of  later 


Fenton  John  Anthony  Hokt 


[ 


# 


.  Vi 


'1 


V 


/ 


t 


‘i 


*  4  , ' ' 


t 


i 


195 


The  Neutral  Group 

texts,  unless  internal  testimony  contradicts.  This  text 
then  had  no  home.  It  belonged  to  the  entire  Eastern 
world  of  Christianity. 

Dr.  Hort  conjectures  (vol.  2,  p.  267)  that  both  of 
those  great  manuscripts  (S  and  B)  were  written  in 
the  West,  probably  at  Rome;  ‘‘that  the  ancestors  of 
B  were  wholly  Western  (in  the  geographical,  not  the 
textual  sense)  ;  and  that  the  ancestors  of  S  were 
partly  Alexandrian.”  The  corrections  of  these  texts 
by  later  hands  likewise  have  an  important  textual 
value.  Among  the  church  fathers  the  pre-Syrian  and 
Neutral  text  elements  are  most  numerous  in  Origen, 
Didymus,  Eusebius  and  in  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  The 
relation  of  this  neutral  text  to  the  “  Textus  Receptus,” 
or  Syrian  text,  is  about  that  which  exists  between 
the  Revised  Version  and  the  Authorized  Version. 
Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort  were  both  members  of  the 
British  Revision  Committee,  and  by  their  textual  ex¬ 
perience  succeeded  in  establishing  as  the  basis  of  the 
translation  of  the  Revised  Version  a  purer  text  than 
any  other,  ancient  or  modern. 

155.  The  above  grouping  of  the  Greek  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  proposed  by  Dr.  Hort  was 
made  the  basis  of  his  and  Dr.  Westcott’s  Greek  New 
Testament.  Though  it  has  been  severely,  and  perhaps 
justly,  criticized,  no  superior  scheme  for  classifying 
New  Testament  manuscripts  has  been  proposed.  It 
gave  us  the  best  text  of  the  New  Testament  (1881) 
ever  printed  or  published.  It  was  received  almost 
universally  with  favor  and  gratitude,  as  the  first  sue- 


196  Classification  of  Manuscripts 

cessful  breaking  away  in  England  and  America  from 
the  traditional  “  Textus  Receptus,”  and  was  a  de¬ 
cided  advance  toward  the  reconstruction  of  a  text 
that  stands  but  a  few  generations  at  most  from  the 
New  Testament  autographs. 

Since  the  issuing  of  this  text  in  1881  several  minor 
editions  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  have  appeared, 
abundantly  supplied  with  variant  readings.  Dr. 
Scrivener  again  published,  in  1882,  the  “  Textus  Re- 
ceptus,”  with  the  variant  readings  of  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the 
Revised  Version  of  1881. 

For  the  English  Bible  student  there  is  no  edition  of 
the  New  Testament  that  so  inducts  him  into  the  value 
of  ancient  manuscripts  as  the  Variorum  Teachers’ 
Bible.  Its  variant  translations,  and  the  best  readings 
of  different  manuscripts  and  versions  are  admirably 
gathered  together  at  the  bottom  of  the  pages.  Au¬ 
thorities  are  so  cited  as  to  give  the  reader  assurance 
that  the  best  that  can  be  afforded  is  set  before  him. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


HOW  MANUSCRIPTS  AND  VERSIONS  ARE  USED 

156.  In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  briefly 
described  scores  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and  quota¬ 
tions.  This  material  is  now  available  for  biblical 
scholars  and  students.  By  the  judicious  use  of  them 
they  can  gradually  detect  and  count  out  scribal  errors, 
they  can  eliminate  what  were  originally  marginal  notes 
made  by  copyists  and  ecclesiastics,  which  have  since 
been  incorporated  into  the  text.  By  a  careful  com¬ 
parison  and  weighing  of  the  evidence  at  hand  they 
can,  as  it  were,  rub  off  the  excrescences  of  the  true 
text,  and  give  us  almost  the  polished  shaft  of  the 
original,  the  very  writings  of  the  apostles  and  evan¬ 
gelists. 

This  is  the  use  that  scholars  are  making  of  the  in¬ 
valuable  biblical  treasures  that  are  found  carefully 
preserved  in  the  great  libraries  of  the  world.  There 
are  certain  principles,  on  which  they  work.  They 
lay  down  certain  rules,  and  by  these  rules  every 
fact  concerning  a  manuscript,  its  history  and  its  read¬ 
ings,  is  judiciously  investigated  and  weighed.  The 
evidence  for  the  readings  of  the  versions  is  likewise 
tested  in  the  same  mental  crucible  and  the  refined 
resultant  incorporated  in  the  purest  text.  This  branch 
of  biblical  research  is  called  “Textual  Criticism.” 

197 


198  How  Manuscripts  Are  Usect 

157.  This  textual  criticism  is  usually  looked  upon 
as  a  dry  and  uninteresting  study.  But  the  science  of 
biblical  criticism  is  one  of  the  most  fascinating  of 
all  branches  of  investigation.  Its  importance  for  the 
Christian  church  and  for  Christian  truth  is  beyond 
computation.  For  all  Christian  doctrines  and  teach¬ 
ings  are  based  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
character  of  this  Scripture  is  then  all-important.  The 
careful  student  will  not  rest  until  he  knows  that  he 
has  the  best  and  purest  text  possible,  in  order  that 
what  he  extracts  from  it  may  be  wholly  reliable  for 
the  foundations  of  his  beliefs. 

This  criticism  of  the  text,  or  textual  criticism, 
which  aims  to  secure  as  near  as  can  be,  the  words  of 
the  original  writers,  or  the  lost  autographs,  is  dis¬ 
tinct  from  “  higher  criticism.^’  This  latter,  more 
properly  termed  historical  and  literary  criticism,  deals 
with  such  problems  as  the  origin,  composition,  au¬ 
thenticity  and  literary  characteristics  of  any  document. 
It  does  not  trespass  upon  the  province  of  the  inter¬ 
preter,  but  deals  with  matters  that  are  preliminary  to 
his  work. 

Its  field  is  that  broad  one  of  history,  literary  meth¬ 
ods,  individual  characteristics,  all  such  questions  as 
aid  in -the  determination  of  the  general  character  of 
any  document,  and  its  proper  place  in  the  general  lit¬ 
erary  material  of  any  given  period  of  history. 

158.  Enough  has  been  said  of  the  great  variety 
of  texts  and  versions  to  show  the  necessity  of  textual 
criticism.  Chapter  I  discussed  several  kinds  of  varia- 


Necessity  of  Textual  Criticism  199 

tions  that  are  found  on  the  margins  of  our  Revised 
Version.  These  variants  are  a  few  of  the  thousands 
that  are  found  in  the  manuscripts  and  versions  which 
formed  the  basis  of  our  English  Bible. 

The  methods  or  accidents  which  gave  rise  to  these 
variants  in  the  Old  Testament  were  mentioned  in  §21. 
Practically  the  same  reasons  would  obtain  in  the  case 
of  the  variants  of  the  New  Testament.  Such  variants 
began  to  exist  very  early  in  the  history  of  the  biblical 
texts,  probably  with  the  very  first  copyist.  And  they 
never  ceased  to  multiply  until  the  printer’s  art  once 
for  all  did  away  with  the  very  fallible  work  of  the 
copyist.  Origen  and  Jerome  were  greatly  disturbed 
by  the  evident  corruptions  of  the  biblical  texts 
in  their  days.  After  their  times,  as  we  pass 
on  down  through  the  middle  ages,  we  find  that 
copies  prepared  for  private  individuals,  and  for 
ecclesiastical  use  and  authorities,  had  been  written 
with  a  good  degree  of  care — with  more  faithfulness 
than  characterized  the  work  of  the  first  four  centuries. 
It  is  ascertained  by  scholars  that  the  changes  of  the 
later  centuries  are  comparatively  unimportant,  and 
that  these  manuscripts  perpetuate,  on  the  whole,  only 
such  erroneous  readings  as  arose  from  one  cause  or 
other  in  the  preceding  centuries.  For  example,  when 
Erasmus  first  printed  the  New  Testament,  he  stereo- 
typed  a  text  that  practically  agreed  with  a  text  that 
was  current  in  Antioch  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury  (SchafT,  Companion,  p.  175). 

As  we  have  already  seen,  Origen  (§§  52-54)  was 


200 


How  Manuscripts  Are  Used 

one  of  the  first,  followed  by  Hesychius  (of  Egypt), 
and  Lucian  (of  Antioch),  to  attempt  to  restore  a  pure 
text,  by  a  comparison  of  the  different  manuscripts. 
With  their  pioneer  methods  they  took  a  step  in  the 
right  direction,  and  noted  the  character  of  the  variants 
found  in  the  texts  at  their  disposal. 

159.  As  scholars  began  the  more  carefully  and 
systematically  to  examine  the  sources,  they  made  col¬ 
lections  of  the  variant  readings.  Those  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  manuscripts  and  published  have  been 
already  referred  to  in  §26.  The  variants  in  the  New 
Testament  manuscripts  were  estimated  by  John  Mill, 
in  1707,  to  be  about  30,000.  Scrivener  in  1874  stated 
that  they  would  not  fall  far  short  of  150,000.  This 
estimate  includes  such  variants  as  the  manner  of  spell¬ 
ing,  the  order  of  words,  and  the  order  of  sentences. 
There  is  no  other  ancient  book,  even  of  the  famed 
Greek  and  Roinan  classics,  that  is  current  in  so  many 
manuscripts,  nor  that  presents  such  a  mass  of  variant 
readings. 

The  mere  existence  of  such  an  enormous  number 
of  variations  in  the  readings  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  has  rather  startled  some  Christians.  They 
fear  that  such  a  colossal  list  of  variants  throws  the 
whole  question  of  the  discovery  of  the  true  text  of 
the  New  Testament  into  hopeless  confusion.  On  the 
other  hand,  these  witnesses  simply  point  out  that  the 
tremendous  importance  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
early  centuries  caused  the  production  of  this  treasure- 
house  of  manuscripts,  which  certainly  does  not  im- 


Rides  for  Textual  Critics  201 

pair,  but  rather  guarantees,  the  integrity  of  the  text. 
Only  about  400  of  the  almost  150,000  variations  ma¬ 
terially  affect  the  sense.  Of  these  400  only  about 
fifty  are  of  real  significance  for  one  reason  or  other. 
And  still,  again,  not  one  of  these  fifty  “  affects  an  arti¬ 
cle  of  faith  or  a  precept  of  duty,  which  is  not  abund¬ 
antly  sustained  by  other  and  undoubted  passages,  or 
by  the  whole  tenor  of  scripture  teaching”  (Schaff^ 
Companion,  p.  177).  Richard  Bentley,  the  ablest  of 
the  classical  critics  of  England,  affirmed  that  even  the 
worst  of  manuscripts  does  not  pervert  or  set  aside  one 
article  of  faith  or  moral  precept  (Schaff,  p.  175!.) • 

160.  Since  the  presence  of  a  large  number  of  var¬ 
iants  in  the  manuscripts  and  versions  necessitates 
textual  criticism,  scholars  have  laid  down  certain  prin¬ 
ciples  or  rules  along  the  lines  of  which  this  science 
proceeds.  The  following  statements  of  the  rules  em¬ 
body  substantially  the  principles  generally  adopted  by 
New  Testament  critics  down  to  the  present  day,  as 
set  forth  by  Schaff  in  the  Introduction  to  the  American 
edition  of  Westcott  and  Hort’s  New  Testament  in 
Greek : 

(i)  Before  proceeding  to  critical  work  with  any 
manuscripts  the  scholar  must  have  acquired  a  general 
knowledge  of  what  must  be  looked  for  in  order  to 
make  a  choice  of  readings ;  in  other  words,  his  train¬ 
ing  must  have  been  such  as  to  have  prepared  him 
to  weigh  evidence  as  between  the  value  of  the  variants 
that  he  discovers.  This  rule  emphasizes  the  fact  that 
only  men  of  scholarship  who  have  especially  trained 


202  How  Manuscripts  Are  Used 

minds  are  capable  of  prosecuting  this  close  critical 
work. 

(2)  Every  kind  of  evidence,  internal  and  external,, 
concerning  a  manuscript  must  be  taken  into  account 
according  to  its  intrinsic  value.  The  place  where  a 
manuscript  was  discovered,  the  conditions  under 
which  it  was  found,  the  probable  conditions  under 
which  it  was  preserved,  the  character  of  the  writing, 
and  the  material  upon  which  the  writing  was  done — 
these  and  many  other  evidences  must  be  carefully  con¬ 
sidered  by  the  textual  critic,  and  be  given  due  weight 
in  the  important  work  that  he  has  before  him. 

(3)  The  internal  evidence  or  sources  of  the  text 
must  be  sifted  and  classified,  and  the  authorities  for 
variant  readings  must  be  weighed  rather  than  num¬ 
bered.  One  independent  manuscript  may  be  worth  a 
score  which  were  copied  from  the  same  original.  More 
careful  scrutiny  may  discover  that  the  witnesses  fall 
into  certain  groups  or  families,  and  that  they  repre¬ 
sent  certain  tendencies. 

(4)  The  restoration  of  the  pure  text  must  be 
founded  on  the  history  and  genealogy  of  the  textual 
variations.  In  other  words,  before  the  pure  text  can 
be  determined  scholars  must  carefully  trace  as  far 
as  possible  the  ancestry  of  the  manuscripts.  This 
may  be  a  very  simple  or  a  very  complex  matter.  It 
may  be  found,  as  an  example,  that  ten  manuscripts 
may  be  traced  to  one  and  the  same  original ;  and  that 
one  hundred  manuscripts  were  copied  from  a  second 
original  of  good  character.  It  would  not  be  just  to 


More  Rules  for  Text  Critics 


203 


give  the  hundred  manuscripts  ten  times  the  weight 
in  evidence  as  to  variant  readings  as  the  ten  manu¬ 
scripts.  At  first  thought  we  should  say  that  the  evi¬ 
dence  in  the  two  cases  is  about  equal.  But  before 
reaching  a  conclusion  we  should  be  required  to  ex¬ 
amine  with  great  care  all  other  available  evidence 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  readings. 

161.  (5)  Briefly  speaking,  the  reading  of  an  older 

manuscript  is  preferable  to  that  of  a  later,  because  it 
is  presumably  nearer  the  source.  Now  and  then,  how¬ 
ever,  later  copies  may  represent  a  more  ancient  read¬ 
ing,  for  their  descent  may  be  through  an  entirely  dif¬ 
ferent  genealogical  line. 

(6)  In  general,  the  shorter  reading  is  preferable  1 
to  the  longer,  because  insertions  and  additions  are 
more  probable  than  omissions.  Many  illustrations 
of  this  case  may  be  seen  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version.  In  Mark  3:  14,  after  “And  he  appointed 
twelve,”  the  margin  says,  “  Some  ancient  authorities 
add,  whom  also  he  named  apostles in  9 :  49,  after 
“  For  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire,”  the  margin 
says,  “  Many  ancient  authorities  add,  and  every  sacri¬ 
fice  shall  be  salted  with  salt;”  to  ii:  25  the  margin 
reads,  “  many  ancient  authorities  add  ver.  26,  But  if 
ye  do  not  forgive,  neither  will  your  father  who  is  in 
heaven  forgive  your  trespasses.”  By  this  rule  scores 
of  readings  are  counted  out  as  indicated  by  the  state¬ 
ments  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version. 

(7)  The  more  difficult  and  obscure  reading  is 
preferable  to  the  one  that  is  more  easy  and  simple  in 


204  How  Manuscripts  Are  Used 

construction.  This  is  seen  in  many  New  Testament 
passages  where  an  insertion  or  addition  is  made  to 
explain  an  otherwise  obscure  passage,  or  one  difficult 
to  understand,  or  hard  to  believe  to  be  true.  In  Luke 
12:  31  we  find,  “Yet  seek  ye  his  kingdom,”  to  which 
the  margin  remarks,  intending  to  clear  up  the  obscur¬ 
ity,  “  Alany  ancient  authorities  read,  the  kingdom  of 
God.”  Romans  8 :  28b  reads,  “  all  things  work  to¬ 
gether  for  good,”  but  the  margin  contains  this : 
“  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  God  worketh  all 
things  with  them  for  good.”  This  latter  is  easier  to 
believe  and  understand  than  that  severe  truth  con¬ 
tained  in  the  text  of  the  Revised  Version. 

(8)  The  reading  which  best  explains  the  origin  of 
the  other  variations  is  preferable ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  reading  is  to  be  preferred,  from  which  all  the 
other  variations  may  have  been  derived,  though  it 
itself  could  not  have  sprung  from  them. 

162.  (9)  That  reading  is  to  be  preferred  which 

best  suits  the  peculiar  literary  style  of  the  author,  for 
copyists  usually  disregard  the  idiosyncrasies  of  an 
author.  This  is  a  difficult  rule  to  make  use  of,  for  an 
author  does  not  always  express  himself  in  a  uniform 
manner,  nor  should  we  be  required  to  rule  out  an 
expression  because  he  uses  it  but  once.  Even  the 
expert  critic  may  abuse  the  license  granted  under 
this  rule. 

(10)  That  reading  which  bears  the  ear-marks  of 
doctrinal  controversy  should  be  ruled  out  in  favor  of 
one  to  which  no  such  suspicion  is  attached.  In  Mat- 


These  Rules  Applied  205 

thew  1 :  16  the  Revised  Version  reads,  ''  and  Jacob 
begat  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  was 
born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ;”  the  Curetonian 
Syriac  is  biased  toward  the  miraculous  conception, 
for  it  reads,  “  And  Jacob  begat  Joseph,  to  whom  was 
betrothed  Mary  the  Virgin,  who  bare  Jesus  Christ;” 
the  Sinaitic  Syriac,  on  the  other  hand,  denies  such 
conception,  for  it  reads,  “  And  Jacob  begat  Joseph, 
and  Joseph,  to  whom  was  betrothed  Mary  the  Virgin, 
begat  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ.”  Both  of  these 
quotations  reveal  changes  and  insertions  that  were 
made  for  doctrinal  or  controversial  reasons,  and  they 
are  rejected  in  favor  of  that  text  to  which  no  such 
suspicion  can  be  attached. 

(11)  The  agreement  of  the  most  ancient  witnesses 
of  all  classes  decides  the  true  reading  against  all  me¬ 
diaeval  copies  and  printed  editions.  If  all  ancient  testi¬ 
mony,  manuscripts,  versions  and  quotations  agree  on 
a  certain  reading,  no  mediaeval  or  modern  witnesses 
can  rule  it  out  of  court. 

(12)  “The  primary  uncials,  the  Sinaitic  (S),  the 
Vatican  (B),  the  Ephraem  (C),  and  the  Alexandrian 
(A)  codices — especially  S  and  B — if  sustained  by 
ancient  versions  and  ante-Nicene  citations,  outweigh 
all  later  authorities,  and  give  us  presumably  the  orig¬ 
inal  text.” 

163.  The  application  of  these  rules  in  dealing  with 
manuscripts,  versions,  and  quotations  has  given  us  the 
best  texts  in  use  to-day.  They  have  ruled  out,  in  the 
main,  the  Greek  text  of  Textus  Receptus,  which  was 


2o6 


How  Manuscripts  Are  Used 

the  basis  of  all  Protestant  versions  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  in  favor  of  another  text  based  on  the  great  un¬ 
cial  manuscripts  above  referred  to.  As  we  have  al¬ 
ready  noted,  the  Textus  Receptus  was  based  on  a  few 
late  cursive  manuscripts,  employed  by  Erasmus,  Ste- 
phanus  and  Beza,  before  the  discovery  of  the  wealth 
of  early  documents  which  we  now  possess.  The  great 
New  Testament  critics  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tregelles,  Tischendorf,  Scriv¬ 
ener,  Westcott  and  Hort,  have  had  at  their  dis¬ 
posal  all  the  wealth  of  documents  now  preserved  in 
our  great  libraries.  By  the  careful  construction  and 
application  of  the  rules  above  recited  they  have  been 
successful  in  giving  us  a  Greek  text  that  reaches  back 
at  least  one  thousand  years  before  the  date  of  the 
manuscripts  that  formed  the  basis  of  the  Textus  Re¬ 
ceptus.  We  now  have  a  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  dating  at  least  from  the  fourth  century,  and  rep¬ 
resenting  the  best  that  modern  scholarship  has  been 
able  to  produce. 


Part  III. 


English  Versions  of  the  Bible 


CHAPTER  XIX 

EARLY  ENGLISH  MANUSCRIPTS 

164.  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Great  Britain 
as  early  as  the  second  century.  Its  progress  was  com¬ 
paratively  slow  before  the  sixth  century,  but  in  Ireland 
it  had  taken  deep  root.  This  Irish  acorn  grew  to  im¬ 
mense  proportions,  until  in  the  sixth  century  it  ex¬ 
tended  to  Scotland  and  northern  England,  where  the 
invasions  of  the  Teutons  largely  crushed  out  its  earlier 
gains.  The  landing  of  Augustine  at  Kent,  in  597  A.  D., 
gave  a  new  lease  of  life  to  the  struggles  of  the  few 
remaining  Christians.  The  vigorous  efforts  of  that 
giant  saint  soon  pushed  the  gospel  to  the  front.  In 
spite  of  his  rather  irascible  temper  and  occasional  un¬ 
wise  movements,  Christianity  made  decided  steps  in 
advance,  particularly  in  southern  England.  And  by 
the  loyalty  of  one  of  his  own  converts  especial  favors 
were  granted  to  missionaries  in  Northumbria. 

Almost  the  entire  progress  of  Christianity  through¬ 
out  Great  Britain  was  due  to  the  active  preaching  of 
the  gospel.  Few  could  read,  and  there  were  fewer 
copies  of  the  Bible  to  be  read.  Therefore  the  most 
effective  and  rapid  method  of  spreading  the  good 
news  of  the  kingdom  was  through  the  heralding  of 

207 


2o8 


Early  English  Manuscripts 

the  truth  by  the  missionaries  of  the  Christian  church. 
The  mingling  and  commingling  of  languages  on  the 
isles  of  Britain  placed  a  barrier  to  the  early  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Bible  into  anything  that  could  be  popu¬ 
larly  recognized  as  the  one  language  of  the  country. 
The  version  of  the  Bible  in  use  was,  of  course,  the 
Latin ;  and  the  preachers  who  traveled  everywhere 
declared  the  truth  in  the  tongues  of  their  listeners. 
These  preachers  were  usually  the  educated  monks,  or 
their  pupils,  who  were  able  to  interpret  the  Latin  Bible 
to  their  auditors. 

165.  But  the  vigorous  Briton  mind  very  soon 
began  to  put  its  thoughts  into  writing.  That  quaint 
Celtic-Saxon  poet-singer  Caedmon  began  to  attune  his 
words  to  his  native  harp  about  the  middle  of  the  sev¬ 
enth  century.  At  first  merely  a  farmer,  he  was  trans¬ 
formed,  through  a  vision  of  the  night,  into  a  forceful 
poet.  When  the  monks  translated  narratives  out  of 
the  Latin  Bible,  Caedmon,  with  a  sparkling  genius,  put 
them  into  a  charming  poetic  paraphrase.  These  speci¬ 
mens  of  our  earliest  English  literature  are  also  the 
first  known  attempts  to  put  the  Bible  into  English 
dress.  Its  character  and  form  give  it  no  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  but  its  an¬ 
tiquity  and  subject  matter  attract  particular  attention, 
for  it  is  one  of  the  forerunners  of  the  English  Bible. 

All  that  we  know  of  Caedmon  has  been  preserved 
by  Bede.  He  tells  us  that  this  poet  was  an  ignorant 
farmer  of  Northumbria,  who  worked  for  an  official 
of  the  abbey  of  Whitby.  At  the  festive  gatherings 


Aid  helm  and  Egbert 


209 


in  the  great  hall  it  was  the  custom  to  pass  around  the 
harp,  requiring  each  one  present  to  play  and  sing.  For 
several  years  Caedmon  had  left  the  hall  just  as  his 
turn  came,  for  he  could  not  sing.  One  night,  after 
he  had  thus  gone  out  to  care  for  his  horses  and  cattle, 
he  fell  asleep  in  the  stable ;  and  as  he  slept  he  heard 
a  voice  saying,^  Caedmon,  sing  to  me.”  And  he  said, 
“  I  cannot  sing,  and  for  that  reason  I  have  come  away 
from  the  feast.”  Again  the  voice  said,  ”  Sing  to  me.” 
And  he  answered,  “What  shall  I  sing?”  “Sing  to 
me  the  first  beginning  of  created  things.”  Thence¬ 
forth  words  came  to  his  lips,  and  he  sang  in  his  dreams 
a  hymn  of  praise  to  God  his  maker.  The  next  morn¬ 
ing  the  story  of  his  dream  brought  him  before  the 
Lady-Abbess,  and  he  was  found  to  be  possessed  of  a 
divine  gift.  For  as  soon  as  the  monks  translated  any 
portion  of  the  Bible  story  out  of  the  Latin  text  he 
immediately  sang  it  to  the  accompaniment  of  his  harp 
in  short  lines  of  Saxon  verse.  Caedmon’s  paraphrase 
appeared  about  670,  just  as  Christianity  is  said  to 
have  won  marked  triumphs  in  the  conversion  of  Eng¬ 
land,  though  Caedmon’s  authorship  is  in  doubt. 

166.  South  England  at  about  the  same  time  was 
receiving  religious  instruction  through  popular  poetry 
attuned  to  the  harp  of  Aldhelm,  abbot  of  Malmes¬ 
bury.  This  shrewd  official  observed  that  the  usual 
sermon  had  little  attraction  for  the  ordinary  run  of 
Englishmen.  Being  a  skilful  musician,  he  put  on  the 
garb  of  a  minstrel,  and  took  up  a  position  on  a  bridge 
over  which  many  people  were  obliged  to  pass.  His 


2  10  Early  English  Manuscripts 

artistic  playing  soon  attracted  a  group  of  listeners. 
As  soon  as  he  had  thus  collected  an  audience  he  gave 
his  music  and  words  a  religious  turn,  and  by  the 
strains  of  his  splendid  instrument  and  the  persuasive 
form  of  his  attractive  language  won  many  to  Chris¬ 
tianity. 

This  same  Aldhelm,  later  bishop  of  Sherborne,  who 
died  in  709,  was  the  first  known  translator  of  the 
Psalms  into  Anglo-Saxon  English.  There  is  a  manu¬ 
script  in  Paris  which  is  thought  by  some  scholars  to 
be  the  Psalter  of  Aldhelm ;  but  this  document  was 
written  in  the  eleventh  century,  and  bears  on  it  some 
ear-marks  of  a  later  time.  About  the  same  time,  it 
is  thought,  and  at  Aldhelm’s  request,  Egbert,  bishop 
of  Holy  Island,  produced  a  translation  of  the  Gospels. 
This  particular  document  is  represented  by  a  copy  in 
the  British  Museum. 

These  two  bishops,  one  representing  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  and  the  other  the  New,  are  two  important  fore¬ 
runners  of  the  complete  manuscripts  of  the  whole 
Bible  in  early  English. 

167.  The  most  renowned  Christian  and  scholar  of 
this  period  was  Bede,  born  674,  died  735.  He  is  called 
the  brightest  light  in  Western  Europe  in  the  eighth 
century.  He  is  the  head  of  the  long  procession  of 
translators  of  the  Bible,  stretching  from  the  eighth 
to  the  twentieth  century.  One  of  his  followers,  Cuth- 
bert,  has  left  us  the  story  of  the  death  of  this  good 
old  monk  of  Jarrow.  All  through  the  day  before  As¬ 
cension  Day,  A.  D.  735,  he  had  been  dictating  his 


King  Alfred  2 1 1 

translation  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  For  he  said,  “  I  do 
not  want  my  boys  [monks]  to  read  a  lie,  or  to  work 
to  no  purpose  after  I  am  gone.”  On  the  evening  of 
that  day  one  chapter  only  remained  untranslated.  The 
great  scholar  seemed  very  near  to  death.  Early  on 
the  morning  of  Ascension  Day  his  amanuensis  said, 
“  Dear  master,  there  is  one  chapter  yet  to  do.”  “  Take 
thy  pen  and  write  quickly,”  said  Bede.  All  through 
that  day,  interrupted  by  saying  farewells  to  the  breth¬ 
ren  of  the  monastery,  he  painfully  translated  on.  Just 
as  night  began  to  wrap  the  earth  in  her  shroud,  his 
sobbing  scribe  leaned  over,  and  whispered,  ”  Master, 
there  is  just  one  sentence  more.”  And  he  said,  “  Write 
quickly.”  The  scribe  wrote  on,  and  then  said,  “  See, 
dear  master,  it  is  done  now.”  “  Yes,  you  speak  truly ;  it 
is  finished  now.”  Then,  by  his  request,  they  laid  him 
down  on  the  pavement  of  his  cell,  and  he  departed 
with  the  “  Gloria  ”  on  his  lips,  to  be  with  the  dear  Mas¬ 
ter  whom  he  had  so  faithfully  served  during  a  long 
and  devoted  life.  Of  this  translation,  however,  there 
is  no  trace  left.  It  is  supposed  that  it  perished,  with 
many  other  treasures  of  Northumbria,  when  the  coun¬ 
try  was  laid  waste  by  the  Danes.  But  the  part  that 
the  Venerable  Bede  had  in  the  early  translations  of 
the  Latin  Bible  into  the  vernacular  language  of  Eng¬ 
land  in  the  eighth  century  is  undisputed.  And  hia 
profound  influence  upon  the  Christianity  of  England 
in  its  formative  period  cannot  be  overlooked. 

168.  One  of  the  greatest  patrons  of  religion  and 
biblical  learning  in  these  centuries  was  King  Alfred 


2 1 2  Early  English  Manuscripts 

(848-901).  His  name  stands  with  the  best  of  Eng¬ 
land’s  kings,  as  one  who  planned  and  promoted  the 
intellectual  and  moral  well-being  of  his  subjects. 
Though  Christianity  was  on  the  wane,  he  quickly  in¬ 
stilled  new  life  into  it,  and  gave  the  use  of  the  Bible  a 
new  impulse.  He  was  so  convinced  of  the  genuine 
value  of  it  that  he  translated,  or  caused  to  be  trans¬ 
lated,  and  placed  at  the  head  of  the  laws  of  his  coun¬ 
try,  a  copy  of  the  ten  commandments ;  to  these  he 
added  other  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  His  activity  did 
not  cease  here,  for  he  seemed  to  have  regarded  him¬ 
self  as  one  in  the  succession  of  Aldhelm  and  Bede. 
He  is  said  to  have  produced,  or  to  have  caused  the 
production  of,  a  translation  of  the  Psalter.  But  there 
is  no  known  copy  of  this  work  in  existence,  though 
there  is  a  manuscript  in  the  British  Museum  which 
carries  the  name.  King  Alfred’s  Psalter.  This  copy 
contains  the  Latin  text  with  an  interlinear  English 
translation ;  but  it  is  now  generally  conceded  to  be¬ 
long  to  the  eleventh  century.  There  is,  however,  an¬ 
other  Latin  Psalter  in  the  British  Museum,  thought 
to  have  been  written  about  700  A.  D.,  which  was  sup- 
•  plied  with  a  word-for-word  translation  in  the  dialect 
of  Kent  at  about  the  close  of  the  ninth  century. 

169.  This  same  period  is  thought  to  have  pro¬ 
duced  our  earliest  translation  of  the  Gospels  into  Eng¬ 
lish.  One  would  suppose  that  the  earliest  portion  of 
the  Bible  to  be  put  into  English  would  be  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  but  no  version  is  known  older  than  that  of  the 
Psalter  just  mentioned.  The  so-called  Cotton  manu- 


feipioueu^ 

.  ^scLoim 
t>in  pozqoertt 

-^9pofi^  ffijLcm  Alle^ 

picxaLgiintToinpi^ 
^ohcLuues 
injssus  uefswmn- 

W  $pr 

ooKBeiim  qmnea 
plem^1^epaot^p^lost)l 
pm^ictocan  sucon 
I  mdoieis 

lOnojiTJcs  H^pDtge^csse  - 

Ail  ^fT^e-  htTVsl^  bi»^ 

;Wni  sedmigsumi  seowte- 

lamn  uocem  q;es8c  - 
coMpomi  8  tut>cseRto 

ifA^aT 

secundum  escactm  ^ 

FtYA^tjW' 

Cpuntjaxupguiti  umo 
pcnxtim  cx^umtDUioii^e^ 
pecocmjLinaiidi  C5u6ocpti 

»«isal  ce- xat/iT^ 

^^^iramnjspuscoea 
quod  jpsesnjsnpRcL 

Ali-vm  (t  aXL$~ 

oirmes 


Cotton  Manuscript  (ji  169).  Seventh  Century,  and  inter¬ 
linear  Anglo-Saxon  paraphrase  of  about  A.  I ).  950. 

A  summary  prefixed  to  the  Gospel  of  John 


Tenth  Century  Gospels  213 

script  of  the  British  Museum  is  a  Latin  version  of  the 
Gospels  copied  toward  the  end  of  the  seventh  century 
by  Eadfrith,  bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  from  a  text  which 
Adrian,  friend  of  archbishop  Theodore,  had  brought 
to  England  in  669.  About  950  Aldred,  a  priest,  pre¬ 
pared  and  wrote  between  the  lines  of  this  Latin  text, 
his  Anglo-Saxon  paraphrase.  This  is  the  earliest 
known  version  of  the  Gospels  in  the  English  language  ; 
but  its  dialect  is  that  of  Northumbria.  This  text  is  now 
known  under  the  names  of  “  The  Lindisfarne  Gos^ 
pels,”  “  The  Book  of  Durham,”  and  “  The  Gospels  of 
St.  Cuthbert.” 

The  Bodleian  library  at  Oxford  possesses  another 
interlineated  copy,  a  gloss  of  the  Lindisfarne  version, 
known  as  “  The  Rushworth  Gospels,”  which  had  its 
origin  a  little  later  in  Ireland. 

The  Latin  text  used  in  all  these  interlinear  versions 
was  not  that  of  the  Vulgate,  but  of  the  Old  Latin,  al¬ 
ready  described  in  Chapter  XV. 

170.  The  earliest  copies  of  translations  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  with  no  accompanying  Latin  text,  are  found  in 
the  tenth  century.  There  are  six  known  copies  of 
such  translation,  varying  slightly  the  one  from  the 
other.  Of  these,  two  are  found  in  each  of  the  libra¬ 
ries  of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  the  British  Museum. 
The  oldest  of  them,  at  Cambridge,  was  produced  by 
abbot  yElfric,  and  written  at  Bath  about  A.  D.  1000. 
The  variants  of  these  manuscripts  may  point  to  the 
same  original  text,  whose  identification  is  not  yet  made 
out.  It  is  known,  however,  that  one  of  these  manu- 


214  Early  English  Manuscripts 

scripts  represents  a  text  that  was  in  general  use  in 
Wessex.  This  same  ^Ifric,  later  archbishop  of  Can¬ 
terbury,  made  an  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Esther,  Job,  a  part  of  Kings, 
and  the  apocryphal  books  of  Judith  and  Maccabees. 
He  left  out  what  he  regarded  as  of  least  importance. 
Judith  and  Maccabees  seem  to  have  been  included  to 
fire  the  patriotic  spirit  of  his  countrymen  against  the 
invading  Danes.  One  of  the  interesting  phases  of 
^Ifric’s  work  is  the  fact  that  he  says  that  he  made 
use,  in  his  translation,  of  older  versions.  Thus  far, 
however,  no  such  works  have  been  discovered.  The 
lack  of  any  such  versions  to-day  may  be  due  to  the 
terrific  destruction  which  the  Danes  visited  upon  the 
country,  and  to  the  devastations  of  the  Normans.  Of 
^Ifric’s  work  there  is  one  manuscript  in  Oxford  and 
one  in  the  British  Museum. 

1 71.  In  about  a  half-century  after  ^Ifric’s  day 
came  the  Normans  (1066)  to  crush  the  Saxons  and 
plant  their  scepter  on  the  isles  of  Briton.  Their  in¬ 
vasion  meant  the  dethronement  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
language  and  the  substitution  therefor  of  the  Anglo- 
Norman.  The  Anglo-Saxon  tongue  was  ostracized 
from  the  court,  from  books,  and  from  schools.  It  was 
turned  out  of  doors  by  royal  decree,  to  find  a  refuge 
only  with  the  cloistered  monk,  the  priest,  and  the  peas, 
ant.  Its  prohibition  banished  it  from  writing,  and 
hence  from  a  literary  use.  But  its  flavor  could  not 
be  entirely  destroyed.  The  new  tongue,  brought  in 
by  the  conquerors  and  authorized  by  royal  edict, 


Fourteenth  Century  Psalters 


215 


slowly  but  gradually  percolated  the  conquered  realm. 
The  confusion  of  tongues  thus  brought  about  pre¬ 
vented  the  production  of  anything  that  could  claim 
the  name  of  literature  until  the  thirteenth  century. 
All  activity,  too,  in  the  production  of  Bible  transla¬ 
tions  suffered  almost  extinction  during  this  period  of 
literary  chaos. 

But  we  have  one  notable  piece  of  Scriptures  from 
the  early  part  of  the  thirteenth  century  (1215).  An 
Augustinian  monk  by  the  name  of  Orm  made  a  metri¬ 
cal  version  of  parts  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  for 
use  in  church  services,  which  is  known  to-day  as  “The 
Ormulum.’^  This  version  is  not  a  translation,  but 
a  paraphrase,  accompanied  with  brief  explanatory 
notes,  designed  for  use  in  that  day.  The  language  of 
this  version  is  a  peculiar  compound.  Its  vocabulary 
is  Teutonic,  but  its  cadence  and  syntax  are  colored 
by  Norman  characteristics.  The  “  Ormulum  ”  is  pre¬ 
served  in  a  fine  manuscript  of  20,000  lines  in  the  Bod¬ 
leian  library  at  Oxford.  It  seems  to  have  been  easier 
to  make  a  paraphrase  than  a  translation  in  the  early 
thirteenth  century.  Following  the  Ormulum  some  one 
put  Genesis  and  Exodus  into  verse  for  general  use. 

172.  There  was  also  produced,  a  little  later,  by  an 
unknown  author,  a  version  of  the  Psalter,  metrical 
in  form,  and  almost  a  translation  in  its  faithfulness  to 
the  original.  It  is  curious,  and  yet  explicable,  that 
there  was  no  real  translation-version  of  any  book  of 
the  Bible  after  the  Norman  conquest  until  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourteenth  century,  except  of  the  Psal- 


2 1 6  Early  English  Manuscripts 

) 

ter.  Of  it  there  were  two  prose  translations  that  re¬ 
quire  especial  notice  in  any  discussion  of  this  period. 
So  general  was  the  use  of  the  Psalter,  and  so  uni¬ 
versal  its  character,  that  for  more  than  a  century  it 
seems  to  have  almost  monopolized  the  attention  of 
leading  Christian  scholars,  and  evangelical  authorities. 
One  notable  translation  sprung  up  in  south  England, 
and  the  other  in  the  north.  The  translation  attributed 
to  south  England  is  credited  to  the  skill  and  scholar¬ 
ship  of  William  of  Shoreham,  in  Kent,  and  located  in 
time  about  1320.  This  man  Shoreham  was  a  poet  of 
no  mean  proportions.  His  poems  are  in  the  Kentish 
dialect,  while  his  Psalter  is  in  the  dialect  of  the  West 
Midlands.  The  north  England  translation  was  pro¬ 
duced  in  about  the  same  period  by  Richard  Rolle,  the 
so-called  “  Hermit  of  Hampole,”  near  Doncaster,  in 
Yorkshire.  In  Rolle’s  translation  each  verse  is  fol¬ 
lowed  by  a  commentary  in  order  thereby  to  make  it  of 
the  utmost  value  to  the  common  preacher  of  his  day, 
who  might  not  completely  understand  the  significance 
of  the  translation.  The  original  from  which  they 
translated  was  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  their  work  fur¬ 
nishes  us  to-day  admirable  specimens  of  the  English 
language  of  that  time. 

The  time  of  the  work  of  these  two  biblical  scholars 
falls  before  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
They  are  located  by  some  students  at  1320  for  William 
of  Shoreham  and  1340  for  Richard  Rolle.  In  other 
words,  their  translations  were  completed,  distributed, 
and  in  full  use,  about  the  time  of  the  birth  and  youth 


hitellechial  Awakening  217 

of  Wycliffe,  about  1320-40.  These  translations 
of  the  Psalter,  widely  sown  and  known  in  England, 
created  a  thirst  for  larger  portions  of  God’s  Word, 
and  thus  prepared  the  soil  for  the  large  service  of 
Wycliffe,  whose  work  will  engage  us  in  the  next 
chapter. 

173.  The  spread  of  the  Shoreham-Rolle  versions 
of  the  Psalter  was  the  beginning  of  the  conquest  of 
the  English  language  proper.  The  old  Anglo-Saxon 
gradually  faded  out  before  the  newcomer,  which  was 
given  grace  and  favor  through  the  Psalms  that  were 
so  well  beloved  by  the  people  at  large.  Political  con¬ 
cessions  to  the  common  people  had  opened  up  before 
them  the  beauties  of  a  liberty  and  independence  that 
filled  life  with  a  new  impetus  and  new  inspiration.  The 
production  of  such  English  literature  as  that  of  Gang¬ 
land,  Gower  and  Chaucer  presented  a  new  side  to  the 
life  of  the  awakening  Englishmen  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  These  productions,  together  with  the  Psal¬ 
ters  already  noted,  stirred  up  the  appetite  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  nation  intellectually  and  religiously,  so  that  Wyc¬ 
liffe,  by  his  mental  and  religious  instinct,  could  rightly 
divine  the  moment  when  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible 
would  satisfy  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  hunger  of  a 
people. 


CHAPTER  XX 


WYCLIFFE’S  version  of  the  BIBLE 

174.  John  Wycliffe  stands  out  as  one  of  the  most 
illustrious  figures  of  the  fourteenth  century.  He  was 
born  in  Yorkshire  about  1320,  and  completed  his  edu¬ 
cation  at  Oxford.  He  is  said  to  have  become  Master 
of  Balliol  College,  and  to  have  won  a  high  place  among 
the  scholars  of  his  day.  In  1361  he  resigned  the  ardu¬ 
ous  post  of  Master,  and  settled  on  a  living  at  Filling- 
ham,  Lincolnshire.  This  mode  of  life  gave  him  more 
leisure  for  the  production  of  pamphlets  and  addresses 
on  the  stirring  questions  of  those  troublous  days. 
With  Oxford  and  its  attractive  circle  of  scholars  close 
at  hand,  Wycliffe  became  deeply  interested  in  the 
great  ecclesiastical  controversies  of  the  times.  His 
own  personal  knowledge  of  the  conditions  and  needs 
of  the  common  people,  as  seen  among  his  parishioners, 
and  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  intellectual 
life  of  Oxford,  prepared  him  for  doing  a  large  service 
for  the  people  of  his  day.  Wycliffe’s  public  life  may 
be  divided  for  convenience  into  three  periods:  (i) 
His  education  and  training  at  Oxford,  and  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  his  ecclesiastical  activity  (1336-66);  (2)  his 
semi-political  and  anti-papal,  as  well  as  purely  eccle¬ 
siastical,  work  (1366-78);  and  (3)  his  open  war 

against  Rome,  and  his  preparation  from  the  Latin 
218 


John  Wycliffe 


.c4: 


; 


I 


The  Fourteenth  Century 


219 


Vulgate  of  a  translation  of  the  Bible  for  the  common 
people  (1378-84). 

175.  The  fourteenth  century  was  a  period  of 
transition.  It  was  neither  the  middle  ages  nor  the 
reformation.  It  was  a  kind  of  middle  ground  between 
the  two.  Politics,  society,  and  the  church  were  strug¬ 
gling  to  hold  on  to  the  old  order,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  make  friends  with  new  thoughts,  ideals,  and  prog¬ 
ress.  The  “  hundred  years’  war  with  France  ”  was  in 
progress  and  brought  on  the  country  all  the  countless 
fruits  of  such  bloody  struggles.  The  papal  quarrels  at 
Rome,  and  lavish  expenditures,  had  so  depleted  that 
central  ecclesiastical  treasury  that  the  Pope  issued  de¬ 
mands  for  funds  on  the  Britons.  Parliament  refused  to 
accede  to  such  orders,  and  Wycliffe  stood  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  The  immense  wealth  of  the  great  dignitaries 
of  the  church  and  the  organized  corporations  through 
which  they  constantly  added  to  their  accumulations 
were  the  objects  of  some  of  Wycliffe’s  most  determined 
assaults. 

The  power  of  his  attacks  lay  not  so  much  in  his 
enthusiasm  as  in  the  purity,  spirituality,  and  unselfish¬ 
ness  of  his  character,  in  his  determination  to  crush 
the  wrong  and  enthrone  the  right ;  in  his  broad  views 
of  the  questions  of  the  day  and  the  best  method  of 
solving  them  in  the  interests  of  the  common  people  as 
over  against  the  oppressions  of  church  and  state. 

176.  Wycliffe  had  reached  middle  life  before  he 
struck  the  keynote  to  his  great  life-work.  In  1366, 
when  he  was  forty-six  years  old,  he  publicly  justified 


220 


Wy  cliff e  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

and  approved  Parliament’s  action  in  refusing  to  hand 
over  money  at  the  demand  of  the  Pope.  This  act  soon 
drew  him  into  the  center  of  the  fight  against  Rome. 
In  1371  he  was  the  most  prominent  reformer  of  the 
religious  and  social  forces  in  England.  Papal  en¬ 
croachments  and  abuses  of  wealth  in  church  quarters 
were  vigorously  exposed  and  resisted.  As  an  inspi¬ 
ration  to  him,  Wycliffe  had  the  University  of  Oxford 
at  his  back,  except  when  he  promulgated  some  doc¬ 
trine  distinctively  heretical.  Since  Oxford  had  become, 
or  was  popularly  regarded,  the  center  of  liberalism  in 
thought  for  all  Europe,  Wycliffe  could  cut  a  wide 
swath  without  losing  its  moral  support.  With  keen, 
logical  argumentation  he  met  and  defeated  his  papal 
opponents.  Ele  had  no  peer  in  the  lecture  hall  or  the 
pulpit,  and  was  the  terror  of  the  corruptionists  and 
the  promoters  of  the  papal  church.  But  Wyclifife’s 
logic  and  metaphysics,  his  scholasticism  and  political 
views,  are  not  the  outstanding  characteristics  for 
which  he  is  most  largely  remembered  and  honored  in 
the  church  to-day.  These  were  only  elements  of  his 
symmetrical  mind  that  helped  him  to  divine  the  crying 
need  of  his  times.  He  perceived  that  there  was  a  gulf 
between  the  common  people  and  church  authorities, 
and  that  it  should  be  bridged ;  that  they  should  be 
brought  together  on  the  Word  of  God.  He  saw,  too, 
that  the  surest  method  of  defeating  Rome  would  be  to 
put  the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  the  people.  The  ver¬ 
sion  current  in  that  day,  except  a  few  scattered  frag¬ 
ments  from  earlier  centuries,  was  the  Latin  Bible, 


221 


Wyclijfe  s  Resolution 

which  was  used  only  by  the  clergy  and  high  church 
officials.  The  learned  only  could  make  intelligent  use 
of  this  text ;  and  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  teach  it 
and  interpret  it  were  indolent  and  careless,  or 
haughty  and  exclusive  so  far  as  the  common  folk 
were  concerned. 

177.  Wycliffe  “  came  to  the  kingdom  for  such 
a  time  as  this.”  He  saw  that  the  true  emancipation 
of  the  soul  of  man  lay  in  his  opportunity  to  read  the 
Bible  in  his  own  tongue,  in  his  own  home,  that  such 
a  reversal  of  the  prevalent  condition  of  the  people 
would  mean  the  loss  of  Rome’s  power.  The  percep¬ 
tion  of  this  method  of  procedure  led  Wycliffe  to  turn 
his  whole  attention  to  the  work  of  putting  the  Bible 
into  the  language  of  the  every-day  man  and  woman, — 
the  common  people  who  had  been  spiritually  fed,  so 
far  as  they  had  been  fed  at  all,  by  a  careless,  indolent 
and  haughty  priesthood.  Wycliffe  had  already  shown 
himself  to  be  an  open  antagonist  to  the  methods  and 
officials  of  the  church ;  and  this  resolve  on  his  part 
made  him  still  more  unpopular,  even  an  object  of 
attack  by  the  influential  ecclesiastics  of  England. 
Though  a  schoolman,  Wycliffe  laid  supreme  emphasis 
on  the  Scriptures  as  a  basis  for  a  religious  life,  and 
thus  had  no  hesitation  in  throwing  the  weight  of  his 
energies  into  the  production  of  a  version  of  the  Bible 
that  could  be  read  by  the  simplest  peasant. 

178.  Wycliffe  conceived  the  idea  of  translating 
the  whole  of  the  Latin  Bible  or  Vulgate  into  the  Eng¬ 
lish  of  his  time.  Just  when  and  where  he  began  the 


222 


Wy cliff e  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

work  is  not  known.  But  the  New  Testament  was 
finished  about  1380;  and  within  two  years  (in  1382) 
the  whole  Bible  appeared  in  English  dress.  WycliEe, 
of  course,  did  not  do  all  the  work  himself.  As 
rector  of  Lutterworth,  in  Leicestershire,  he  sustained 
close  relations  with  the  great  centers  of  intellectual 
and  spiritual  thought,  particularly  of  Oxford  and 
London.  He  called  into  service  other  scholars  whose 
sympathies  and  abilities  were  in  accord  with  his  own. 
Ample  evidence  is  at  hand  to  show  that  most  of  the 
Old  Testament  work  was  done  by  one  of  his  devoted 
disciples  and  fellow  workers,  Nicholas  of  Hereford. 
There  is  a  manuscript  now  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  at 
Oxford,  which  was  doubtless  written  under  the  di¬ 
rection  of  Hereford ;  for  its  break  in  the  middle  of 
Baruch  3 :  20  is  thought  to  point  to  the  time  when 
he  was  suddenly  summoned  to  London  to  answer  to 
the  charge  of  heresy.  Hereford  was  excommunicated 
and  Wycliffe  is  supposed  to  have  completed  his  work 
on  the  Old  Testament.  Hereford’s  own  work  was 
scholarly,  exact,  and  often  stiffly  literal.  His  training 
and  surroundings  made  him  rather  unpractical,  put 
his  results  in  a  rather  stilted  style,  designed  far  more 
for  scholars  than  for  the  ordinary,  every-day  reader. 
Wyclifife,  on  the  other  hand,  had  been  trained  in  the 
practical  field  of  the  parish,  had  become  accustomed 
to  the  plain,  every-day  parishioner  and  his  needs ;  and 
thus  he  strove  so  to  translate  the  Latin  into  good 
every-day  English  that  his  translation  could  be  read 
and  understood  by  any  plowboy.  There  is,  therefore, 


r45fJ  nm  \»t!cu  VC  t^c  (m 
l^fon  ijFvfiv  fVUCtl  OJfifmS.’  luic 
^  Qnm  uf  omi  micm  pc  ct):«©  toDc 
isrnmicttppiugc  liitcotiaii  Ofpmi 
umctiPtpc  Wtcrkis  (»f  aiitwtt.'tw  car 
m&avHim&uiaiUw:  (rBmiitwit 
m/ltt  itiiHwm  i  'Pif  diGimmt0)vi 
ftmaBJitw.'cc’asijifhc  foi&j^f.iHirauo 
ttvr  i»fr  ivem  iBc  frjftcc  »  vc.|iftr()f 
}te  time  mm}}hi0tw^ 
ajioB  mm  00  iiaa  m(tMp 

mvm  t  fo#  ofj^ap  m&  to  ^ 

lain^fmiiouijetBrBuffi’for&cf  av  ■*' 
mi^ic  man  i  00  axtft  &ivc  £irfi)c  tir 
t>eup  1*0105  IS  iueu$i0  of  dmiiidt  Uno 
tm  C^au^mim’^2  it  faiuv  c’^ir  riif 
UEtveufrfiel  nor  »ioiButirc|Ki  ).|C 
flotarofiitstoiioriUrftju  0|(  cafr* 
aifof  ioi»lJe{w3t8.c'{}oriuft:ciic 
{$  to  ben  ftid  B^ip^cte:  pHu  cufUi^ 
lifT.fo  ftiftce  fU  VC  imCfuBofnf  i 
1*5  rijutlie^to  rim*  01  rtcrU  uc  j^iirdc* 
^»or  n't  c  wa/ Of  c«^  to  ai  to  pio 
ilittl'tcn/'bor  of  cc.piujif^atrid  fton’p 
iBOifti  tboatbi  5  cpui  I’c  toittf*  <1 
itimm  cVmc  not  touaii  moiit' 
t  Oaotmios  of  peu*  Uflcraf  to  Mv 
IBC  611  dmij  to  (*5  Uft*ni.*  f  ttf  iioiV  to 


ofc'^i’cCfiictitv  mo2o  }'fi  viiitoouflar 
of  rc  to  fcOtt*  ^ermpf  of  iiant  & 

Ccimmcipoon  ivumiolFiff  rt^f  ^ 

.voudjt  j’cc  emf  to  tjauj  irdfi^t^ 
^raptaffioarODtCjiufr 
ue  Ccai  nor  of  ©uicoot  of  r  > 

of  lifttcomftiioiBf  I’fji^tomujptK*/^ 
fopc  cfec.jjfctpfoc  lu  icrCftti  ^  m  it 
iBftK  uor  nf  cf  tcnlciiag^  laiitw 
of  ftl  C0{'  triBuic  iioto  COgD^ 

%•  iioiBc  fcuc^iclico.’arcupit  ccpio 
i}i)C(pc-if&  ai*«*  (jc  be  boiar 
foccptemitftotwtt^f  pcarxfftroe  ^ 
tiabotopiiciiicOCtofeiic  }*ca>ni  auujW^. ,  , 
of  cr  tnipic  m  to  iciorn’C  tmi  pc 
,^al  lits  Inipncajc  lO  of  pf  riqjouftr  of  ^ 

' ous  t  of  PC  aim  w£tf  of  mit  iBliotifi,^  W  ^ 
f»ou  mfiriic  moic  ;e  (otini  0  p  aiUci  > 

aiflofticfoimriic  tiioicof imu  onwe 
par  foj  pcpfttJf  bai'UptpJigt  In  voiitd) 
utcciiip®  uiitrfriigip  to  ertru-  ]|C  to 
.^uic  >fcte  mccti  m  oi’iuc  ro  dr.  c’^iBotr 
''me  fttt  f  puupc  to  bait  fumr  f  pe  icn* 
upiigt  of  HOttugemugr  left- pc  leiiw*' 
iciigir  fimiftii  pmrr  npfr  w  I’^^rijir 
rtiioof  i}i  of  pefiiiflicocof  impnimV 


muoim  of 


go«»  <* 


Wyclifife’s  15'blej  before  1397.  Introduction  to  Isaiah  and  part  of 

chapter  i  :  1 


i  ; 


V  . 


•  •  V'  ... 


Wyclijfe  s  “  Lollards  ’’ 


223 


a  very  noticeable  contrast  between  the  styles  of  the 
two  translators.  Hereford’s  dialect,  so  far  as  his 
work  reveals  one,  is  that  of  south  England,  while 
Wycliffe’s  is  that  of  east-Midlands  and  of  the  north. 

179.  As  soon  as  Wycliffe  had  issued  his  translation 
he  organized  a  kind  of  religious  order  of  poor,  though 
not  mendicant,  preachers  to  preach  and  teach  the 
English  Bible  to  the  common  people.  These  were 
voluntary  workers,  not  church  clergy,  who  co-oper¬ 
ated,  when  possible,  with  the  clergy.  If  these  church* 
authorities  opposed  them,  they  carried  on  their  work 
independently,  and  with  all  the  vigor  of  their  conse¬ 
crated  leader,  Wycliffe.  His  disciples  or  followers 
were  called  “  Lollards,”  and  increased  so  rapidly  that 
one  of  his  sharpest  opponents  said,  “  You  cannot 
travel  anywhere  in  England  but  of  every  two  men  you 
meet  one  will  be  a  Lollard.”  This  illustrates  the  im¬ 
mense  popularity  that  soon  greeted  Wycliffe,  and 
made  him  the  chief  advocate  of  personal  religion  and 
of  loyalty  to  the  Scriptures.  This  fact,  too,  gave 
him  great  influence  with  the  church  authorities,  and 
made  him  the  most  successful  reformer  on  English 
soil.  The  culmination  of  his  translation  marked  the 
first  serious  defeat  for  the  church’s  complete  control  of 
the  people  of  England,  and  the  beginning  of  the  end 
of  the  rivalry  between  the  Norman-French  and  Eng¬ 
lish  languages.  Henceforth  the  former  waned  and 
the  latter  increased  in  popularity  and  strength  until 
it  became  established  as  the  language  of  England. 

Wycliffe  did  not  live  to  see  the  best  fruits  of  his 


2  24  Wyclijfe  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

translation.  Two  years  (1384)  after  its  completion 
(1382)  he  died  of  a  stroke  of  paralysis,  brought  on 
by  continuous  and  heavy  work.  But  he  had  planted  a 
tree  whose  fruits,  spiritual  and  literary,  would  be  the 
joy  and  the  exaltation  of  the  common  people  down 
through  the  centuries. 

180.  The  disparity  between  the  style  of  Wyclifife’s 
and  of  Hereford’s  work  in  the  English  Bible  required 
some  harmonizing  version.  Within  a  short  time  after 
Wycliffe’s  death  this  work  seems  to  have  been  under¬ 
taken  by  some  of  his  followers  or  disciples.  Fon 
such  a  revision  appeared  in  1388.  It  is  not  known 
definitely  who  did  the  work,  but  it  has  been  attributed, 
in  part  at  least,  to  John  Purvey,  Wyclifife’s  former 
curate  at  Lutterworth.  The  prologue  tells  us  on  what 
principles  the  revision  had  been  made,  but  omits  all 
names  of  revisers,  except  to  say  that  the  writer  was 
“  a  simple  creature.”  A  few  lines  out  of  this  pro¬ 
logue  in  modern  spelling  read :  “  Though  covetous 
Clerks  are  mad  through  simony,  heresy  and  many 
other  sins,  and  despise  and  impede  Holy  Writ  as  much 
as  they  can,  yet  the  unlearned  cry  after  Holy  Writ 
to  know  it,  with  great  cost  and  peril  of  their  lives. 
For  these  reasons,  and  others,  a  simple  creature  hath 
translated  the  Bible  out  of  Latin  into  English.  First,, 
this  simple  creature  had  much  labor,  with  divers  com¬ 
panions  and  helpers,  to  gather  many  old  Bibles,  and 
other  doctors  and  common  glosses,  and  to  make  a 
Latin  Bible  somewhat  true,  and  then  to  study  it  anew, 
the  text  with  the  gloss,  and  other  doctors,  especially 


225 


Revision  of  Wycliffe  Adopted 

Lire  [Nicolaus  de  Lyra]  on  the  Old  Testament,  who 
gave  him  great  help  in  this  work.”  This  prologue 
shows  that  the  “  simple  creature  ”  attempted  to 
establish  a  Latin  text  on  the  basis  of  all  the  Latin 
versions  and  authorities  that  he  could  consult,  and 
then  to  translate  his  corrected  text — a  good  case  of 
textual  criticism  at  work. 

i8i.  This  revision  of  Wycliffe’s  Bible  soon  took 
the  place  of  the  first  translation.  Within  less  than  a 
century  it  became  the  regular  edition  of  Wyclifife’s 
Bible.  Its  popularity  grew  rapidly.  It  was  eagerly 
sought  for,  and  large  sums  were  paid  for  it  by  the  rich. 
Multiplied  by  transcription  only,  a  copy  was  worth 
a  large  sum  of  money.  Early  in  the  fifteenth  century 
a  complete  copy  would  have  brought,  in  our  money, 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  Foxe  reports  ’ 
that  a  load  of  hay  was  given  for  the  use  of  the  whole 
New  Testament  for  one  day.  Wycliffe’s  Bible  was 
proscribed  by  archbishop  Arundel  in  1408,  when  he 
made  it  a  penal  offense  to  read  any  of  Wycliffe’s 
writings  or  translations  within  the  province  of  Canter¬ 
bury.  In  1414  a  law  was  enacted  that  all  persons 
who  should  read  the  Scriptures  in  the  mother  tongue 
should  “  forfeit  land,  catel,  lif,  and  goods  from  their 
heyres  for  ever.”  Such  prohibition  could  not  smother 
the  fire.  There  are  now  known  to  be  in  existence 
about  one  hundred  and  seventy  manuscript  copies  of 
Wycliffe’s  Bible.  Of  these  less  than  thirty  contain 
the  original  translation  of  1382,  while  the  remainder 
are  copies  of  Purvey’s  version, — all  written  before 


226 


Wyclijfe  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

1430.  Many  of  these  copies  were  written  in  a  small 
hand  without  ornamentation,  and  were  used  by  pri¬ 
vate  individuals  or  in  families.  Some  of  the  finest 
copies  known  have  been  traced  to  the  possession  of 
such  royal  personages  as  Henry  VI,  Henry  VH,  Rich¬ 
ard,  Duke  of  Gloucester,  Humphrey,  Duke  of  Glou¬ 
cester,  Edward  VI,  and  Queen  Elizabeth. 

With  all  its  popularity  and  treasured  value, 
Wycliffe’s  Bible  did  not  appear  in  printed  form  for 
almost  500  years  after  its  first  appearance  in  1382.  It 
was  in  1850,  when  two  hard-working  English  scholars, 
Forshall  and  Madden,  after  twenty  years’  labor  on  170 
manuscripts,  published  in  four  large  quarto  volumes  a 
work  with  the  title :  “  The  Holy  Bible,  containing  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  with  the  Apocryphal 
Books,  in  the  earliest  English  Versions  made  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate  by  John  Wyclifife  and  his  followers, 
edited  by  the  Rev.  J.  Forshall  and  Sir  F.  Madden.” 

182.  The  production  of  the  first  translation  of  the 
whole  Bible  into  English  for  the  use  of  the  common 
folk  of  England  is  to  be  accredited  to  the  foresight, 
insight,  and  energy  of  John  Wycliffe.  Dr.  Gasquet, 
an  English  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  has  recently 
(1894)  challenged  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Wycliffe ;  but  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
great  reformer’s  origination  and  completion  of  the 
work  in  1382  is  too  specific  and  convincing  to  admit 
of  such  doubt.  It  is  true  that  his  translation  was 
made,  not  from  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible, 
but  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  current  in  England  in  his 


227 


Peculiarities  of  Wy cliff e  s  Bible 

day.  Nevertheless,  it  provided  an  easy  entrance  into 
the  secrets  of  the  divine  Word  for  all  who  could  read; 
and  gave  uneducated  preachers  and  teachers  an  un¬ 
failing  source  of  divine  truth  to  set  before  those  who 
could  not  read  it  for  themselves.  Wycliffe’s  work, 
and  that  of  his  co-laborers,  has  indelibly  stamped  itself 
on  our  present-day  Bible.  Some  of  the  permanent 
words  and  expressions  that  are  first  found  in  his  ver¬ 
sion  are :  “  strait  gate,”  “make  whole,”  “  compass  land 
and  sea,”  “  son  of  perdition,”  “  enter  thou  into  the 
joy  of  thy  Lord.”  Some  compact  methods  of  expres¬ 
sion  also  have  remained  with  us :  “  I  wente,  and 
waisehid,  and  sai  ”  (John  9:  ii)  ;  “all  things  ben 
nedeful  to  me,  but  not  alle  thingis  been,  spedeful  ” 
(i  Cor.  6:  12). 

The  great  service  done  the  English  language  and 
the  English  people  by  Wycliffe’s  combination  and  crys¬ 
tallization  of  the  various  dialects  of  England  in  his 
translation  cannot  be  overestimated.  He  practically 
unified  the  various  related  tongues  of  England,  and 
made  them  one  for  the  future  use  of  the  English 
speaking  and  writing  world. 

183.  It  is  a  matter  of  interest  to  make  some  com¬ 
parisons  between  the  language  of  King  Alfred’s  day 
(871-901)  and  of  Wycliffe’s  time  (1382),  and  of  this 
time — three  dates  about  500  years  apart.  This  may 
best  be  done  by  giving  in  the  three  dates  the  so-called 
Lord’s  Prayer ;  giving  the  earliest,  that  of  King 
Alfred’s  day,  first,  Wycliffe’s  second,  and  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Revised  Version  third: 


228 


Wyclijfe  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

Uren  Fader  dhic  art  in  heofnas 
Our  Fadir  that  art  in  heuenes 
Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven 

Sic  gehalyed  dhin  noma 
Halewid  be  thi  name 
Hallowed  be  thy  name 

To  cymedh  dhin  ric 
Thi  Kingdom  comme  to 
Thy  Kingdom  come 

Sic  dhin  willa  sue  is  in  heofnas  and  in  eardhs 
Be  thi  wille  done  as  in  heuen  so  in  erthe 
Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth 

Vren  hlaf  ofer  wirthe  sel  us  to  daeg 

Gyve  to  us  this  dai  oure  breed  ouer  other  substance 

Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread 

And  forgef  us  scylda  urna 
And  forgive  to  us  oure  dettis 
And  forgive  us  our  debts 

Sue  we  forgefan  sculdgun  vrum 
As  we  forgyven  to  oure  dettouris 
As  we  also  have  forgiven  our  debtors 

And  no  inleadh  vridk  in  costung 
And  leede  us  not  in  to  temptacioun 
And  bring  us  not  into  temptation 

Als  gefrig  vrich  fro  ifle 
But  delyvere  us  fro  yvel 
But  deliver  us  from  the  evil 


Lord's  Prayer  in  Three  Versions  229 


This  prayer  breaks  off  where  Matthew  closes  it  in 
the  Revised  Version,  giving  an  interesting  comment  on 
the  relation  of  the  text  used  by  Wycliffe  to  that  one 
finally  adopted  by  the  Revisers  of  1881-85. 


CHAPTER  XXI 


TYNDALE’S  version  of  the  BIBLE 

184.  Wycliffe  died  in  1384.  The  translation  of 
the  Bible  that  he  undertook,  with  Nicholas  de  Here¬ 
ford’s  assistance,  was  completed  in  1384,  and  its  un¬ 
likenesses  harmonized  and  revised  in  1388  by  John 
Purvey.  This  stupendous  task  was  undertaken  and 
completed  without  any  reference  to  the  original  lan¬ 
guages  of  the  Bible.  It  was  a  translation  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate  current  in  that  day.  Its  clothing  was  the  first 
dawnings  of  the  English  language  in  anything  like 
popular  form.  It  took  up  and  crystallized  the  some¬ 
what  volatile  form  of  the  English  tongue  that  was 
used  at  that  time,  and  so  made  it  semi-literary  in  char¬ 
acter.  Wycliffe’s  work,  however,  was  reproduced 
only  by  that  slow,  laborious  and  fallible  method  of 
the  pen.  Copies  made  by  hand  were  expensive,  rare, 
and  not  widely  circulated  until  the  lapse  of  years. 
Thus  the  natural  antipathy  of  the  ecclesiastical  ma¬ 
chine  of  the  country  gradually  waned,  and  the  version 
was  partially  tolerated  by  the  authorities.  In  convo¬ 
cation  at  Oxford  in  1408,  action  was  taken  warning 
the  people  against  a  private  translation,  thus :  “  we 
'  therefore  decree  and  ordain  that  no  man  hereafter 
by  his  own  authority  translate  any  text  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  into  English,  or  any  other  tongue,  by  way  of  a 
230 


William  'J'vndale 


Fifteenth  Century  Awakening  231 

book,  pamphlet,  or  treatise ;  and  that  no  man  read 
any  such  book,  pamphlet,  or  treatise,  now  lately  com¬ 
posed  in  the  time  of  John  Wycliffe  .  .  .  upon 

pain  of  greater  excommunication,  until  the  said  trans¬ 
lation  be  approved  by  the  ordinary  of  the  place,  or,  if 
the  case  so  require,  by  the  council  provincial.” 

In  1412  a  more  stringent  law  was  enacted  against 
heresy,  and  the  Lollard  party  was  apparently  crushed. 
But  Wycliffe’s  Bible  was  slowly,  gradually,  dissemi¬ 
nated,  even  without  an  act  of  approval  as  required  in 
the  convocation  of  1408.  Its  distribution  was,  of 
course,  very  limited  after  the  Lollards  were  sup¬ 
pressed.  Its  matter,  being  a  translation  of  a  transla¬ 
tion,  in  the  English  tongue,  gave  it  popularity  with 
certain  classes  down  to  the  time  of  Tyndale. 

185.  The  fifteenth  century — the  next  after 
Wycliflfe’s  day — was  full  of  the  most  astonishing 
surprises,  of  epoch-making  events.  Political,  national, 
and  material  questions  were  to  the  fore,  while  the 
religious  remained  in  the  background.  The  intellectual 
world  suffered  an  upheaval,  for  the  cloistered  learning 
of  the  monasteries  had  to  yield  to  the  liberalism  and 
freedom  of  the  schools  and  universities.  The  forti¬ 
fied  faith  and  civilization  of  the  middle  ages  was 
forced  to  recognize  a  newer  and  wider  basis  of 
thought  and  ideas.  We  face  here  the  breaking  down 
of  the  faulty  methods  of  the  dark  ages  and  the  incep¬ 
tion  of  revolutionary  principles  and  practises.  It  was 
the  renaissance,  the  regeneration  of  the  nations  of 
Europe.  It  was  the  emancipation  of  the  mind,  of 


232  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

thought,  and  of  literature.  It  was  the  unshackling  of 
the  soul,  the  beginnings  of  the  reformation,  penetra¬ 
ting  every  country  of  Europe. 

186.  Some  of  the  great  facts  that  helped  to  usher 
in  that  marvelous  century  must  be  enumerated  and 
kept  constantly  before  the  mind.  In  1453  the  Turks 
captured  Constantinople,  and  thus  drove  out  scores 
of  Greek  and  Christian  scholars  who  fled  westward 
and  took  refuge  in  the  various  countries  of  Europe. 
Their  learning  and  presence  became  forceful  elements 
in  the  intellectual  and  religious  awakening  of  the  fif¬ 
teenth  century.  In  1455  Gutenberg  printed  from 
movable  types  the  first  complete  Bible,  the  Vulgate, 
later  called  the  Mazarin  edition.  In  1458  the  Greek 
language  was  first  taught  in  the  University  of  Paris., 
The  first  Greek  grammar  was  published  in  1476,  and 
the  first  Greek  lexicon  in  1480.  In  1488  the  first 
printed  Hebrew  Bible  appeared.  In  1492  Grocyn  be¬ 
came  the  first  teacher  of  Greek  in  Oxford.  The  first 
Hebrew  grammar  appeared  in  1503,  and  the  first  lexi¬ 
con  in  1506.  Erasmus  edited  the  first  Greek  New 
Testament  in  1516;  and  in  1514-17  the  great  Complu- 
tensian  Polyglot,  edited  by  Cardinal  Ximenes  and 
printed  at  Alcala,  Spain,  made  its  appearance  in  six 
magnificent  volumes.  Before  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  it  is  asserted  that  no  less  than  eighty  editions 
of  the  Vulgate  were  printed  in  Europe  alone.  Besides 
this  enormous  growth  and  popularity,  there  were  ver¬ 
sions  translated  and  printed  in  the  languages  of  the 
chief  countries  of  Europe,  and  circulating  more  or 


Advance  in  Discovery 


233 


less  freely  among  their  population.  Some  of  these 
were :  German,  Russian,  Slavonic,  Bohemian,  Italian, 
Spanish,  French,  Dutch  and  Danish.  But  no  one  had 
yet  printed  a  Bible  in  the  English  language. 

In  this  same  period  there  was  great  enterprise  and 
activity  in  material  things.  The  printing  press  began 
its  work  in  Germany  in  1454,  and  in  1470  Caxton  first 
introduced  it  into  England.  In  1492  Columbus  dis¬ 
covered  America;  in  1497  Vasco  da  Gama  rounded 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope;  and  in  1520  ^^lagellan  sailed 
around  the  world.  In  1473  Copernicus  was  born, 
and  his  epoch-making  work,  revolutionizing  the  sci¬ 
ence  of  astronomy,  was  finished  in  1530,  though  not 
published  until  1543,  the  year  of  his  death. 

These  intellectual,  literary  and  material  advances 
gave  a  new  impetus  to  life  and  living  and  so  stirred 
the  progressive  peoples  of  that  day  as  to  provoke  the 
most  vigorous  research  into  many  and  hitherto  un¬ 
known  realms  of  knowledge. 

187.  Such  marvelous  progress  in  intellectual  and 
material  lines  inspired  the  forces  of  the  religions  and 
spiritual  spheres.  New  motives  and  new  men  arose 
who  championed  with  vigor  the  cause  of  religious  liv¬ 
ing.  Just  about  one  hundred  years  after  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  Wyclifife’s  translations  and  his  death  (1384) 
William  Tyndale  was  born  (1484).  A  native  of 
Gloucestershire,  “  about  the  borders  of  Wales,”  Foxe 
says  he  was  “  brought  up  from  a  child  ”  in  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Oxford,  and  was  “  singularly  addicted  to 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures.”  He  studied  in  Mag- 


234  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

dalen  Hall  under  the  famous  classical  teachers, 
Grocyn,  Latimer  and  Linacre.  Somewhere  about 
1510  he  left  Oxford  and  went  to  Cambridge,  prob¬ 
ably  to  study  under  Erasmus,  the  renowned  Greek 
New  Testament  scholar.  His  university  career  seems 
to  have  covered  about  ten  years,  for  about  1520  he 
returned  to  his  native  heath,  and  for  two  years  was  a 
tutor  in  the  family  of  Sir  John  Walsh.  The  inspira¬ 
tion  that  he  had  received  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge 
fired  his  soul  to  action,  for  during  these  years  he  car¬ 
ried  on  vigorous  thinking  and  discussion  with  the  con¬ 
servative  and  unthinking  clergy  regarding  the  work 
of  the  church.  In  one  of  these  controversies  with 
a  churchman,  according  to  Foxe,  Tyndale  said,  ‘‘  if 
God  spare  my  life,  ere  many  years  I  will  cause  a  boy 
that  driveth  a  plough  shall  know  more  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  than  thou  doest.”  Tyndale’s  thorough  prepara¬ 
tion  for  handling  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament, 
for  Erasmus’  Greek  New  Testament  appeared  in  1516, 
while  he  was  still  studying  at  Cambridge,  and  his 
familiarity  with  the  needs  and  requirements  of  the 
times,  furnished  him  the  stimulus  and  inspiration  to 
produce  an  English  Bible  translated  directly  out  of  its 
original  languages. 

188.  When  his  opponents  became  too  numerous, 
and  even  began  to  endanger  his  life,  Tyndale  went' 
to  London.  Here  he  sought  out  Tunstall,  bishop  of 
London,  of  whose  love  of  learned  pursuits  he  had 
heard  through  Erasmus,  to  secure,  if  possible,  his  ap¬ 
proval  and  support  for  his  plan  of  translating  the 


Tyndale  in  London 


235 


Bible  into  English.  But  the  bishop  discovered  ex¬ 
cuses  enough  not  to  receive  him.  Tyndale,  however, 
soon  found  a  friend  and  helper  in  Humphrey  Mon¬ 
mouth,  an  alderman  of  London,  who  for  his  favor  to 
Tyndale  was  afterward  incarcerated  in  the  Tower  of 
London.  This  Monmouth  gives  a  description  of  Tyn¬ 
dale  in  which  he  says :  “  I  took  him  into  my  house 
half  a  year ;  and  there  he  lived  like  a  good  priest  as 
methought.  He  studied  most  part  of  the  day  and 
of  the  night  at  his  book;  and  he  would  eat  but  sod¬ 
den  meat  by  his  good  will,  nor  drink  but  small  single 
beer.  I  never  saw  him  wear  linen  about  him  in  the 
space  he  was  with  me.  I  did  promise  him  ten  pounds 
sterling,  to  pray  for  my  father  and  mother,  their  souls 
and  all  Christian  souls.  I  did  pay  it  him  when  he 
made  his  exchange  to  Hamburg”  (Demaus,  p.  103).  ^ 
His  life  of  almost  a  year  in  London  was  an  eye-opener 
to  Tyndale.  Brought  up  comparatively  in  the  coun¬ 
try,  he  soon  learned  that  the  city  was  cosmopolitan 
in  character.  Here  he  met  tradesmen  and  merchants 
from  many  countries,  and  through  them  secured  much 
valuable  information  regarding  the  progress  of 
thought  in  political  and  religious  lines.  Doubtless  he 
learned  the  possibilites,  too,  of  finding  a  place  where 
he  could  put  into  print  the  translation  that  he  was 
making.  His  experiences  with  churchmen  and  poli¬ 
ticians  in  London  for  almost  a  year  seem  to  have 
driven  him  to  the  following  conclusion :  ‘‘  I  under¬ 
stood  not  only  that  there  was  no  room  in  my  lord  of 
London’s  palace  to  translate  the  New  Testament,  but 


23^  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

also,  too,  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it  in  all  Eng¬ 
land.” 

189.  Though  he  left  London  practically  as  an 
exile,  he  was  given  assurance  that  means  would  be 
provided  to  print  his  translation,  and  that  it  would 
be  secretly  imported  into  England,  and  distributed 
where  it  would  serve  its  high  and  noble  purpose.  In 
the  springtime  of  1524  he  went  to  the  free  city  of 
Hamburg.  Contemporary  evidence  goes  to  show 
that  the  most  of  the  year  following  the  spring 
of  1524  was  spent  in  Wittenberg,  in  close  relations 
with  Luther,  the  giant  reformer  of  Germany.  Early 
in  the  spring  of  1525  he  returned  to  Hamburg  to  re¬ 
ceive  a  remittance  of  funds  from  his  London  friend, 
Monmouth. 

In  April,  1525,  he  went  to  Cologne  to  put  into 
print  his  completed  translation  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  Here  he  found  Quentel,  an  expert  printer, 
who  undertook  the  work.  But  the  enemies  and  spies 
of  the  anti-reformation  party  were  busy,  especially  in 
Germany.  Cochlaeus,  an  open  enemy  of  Luther  and 
the  reform  movement,  was  now  in  Cologne,  carrying 
a  book  through  the  same  press  as  that  where  Tyndale 
was  at  work.  By  some  accident  he  heard  the  printers 
boasting  of  the  new  successes  about  to  be  won  for 
Lutheranism  in  England.  To  be  certain  of  his 
ground,  he  invited  to  his  home,  and  dined  and  wined, 
these  same  printers  until  they  talked  freely,  and  gave 
away  the  secret,  viz.,  that  they  were  printing  3,000 
copies  of  the  New  Testament  in  English  for  Tyndale, 


Ty7idale  at  Worms  237 

to  be  secretly  distributed  throughout  England.  Coch- 
laeus  immediately  informed  the  authorities  at  Cologne, 
who  put  a  stop  to  the  work.  Tyndale,  however,  with 
Roye,  his  amanuensis,  took  their  printed  sheets  and 
escaped  by  boat  on  the  Rhine  up  to  the  city  of 
Worms,  already  famed  for  its  Lutheran  strength. 

190.  Tyndale  found  a  welcome  refuge  in  this  hos¬ 
pitable  city,  and  also  put  his  work  into  the  hands  of 
the  printer  Schoeffer.  Cochlseus  had  already  sent  to 
England  a  description  of  the  work  done  in  Cologne, 
so  Tyndale  laid  it  aside  temporarily,  it  being  quarto 
in  form,  with  marginal  notes,  and  first  issued  an 
octavo  edition  of  3,000  copies,  without  either  intro¬ 
duction  or  notes.  This  edition  was  soon  followed  by 
the  completed  quarto  begun  in  Cologne.  Both  edi¬ 
tions  were  shipped  into  England  hidden  away  in  cases 
of  merchandise,  so  that  they  might  be  successfully 
distributed  from  the  very  first.  Being  completed  late 
in  1525,  it  is  probable  that  they  reached  England  early 
in  1526.  Henry  VIII  had  been  informed  by  Lee  (De¬ 
cember  2,  1525),  later  archbishop  of  York,  who  was 
then  on  the  continent,  ‘‘  that  an  Englishman,  at  the 
solicitation  and  instance  of  Luther,  with  whom  he  is, 
hath  translated  the  New  Testament  into  English,  and 
within  few  days  intendeth  to  return  with  the  same  im¬ 
printed  into  England.”  A  German  scholar,  Spala- 
tinus,  records  in  his  diary  of  August,  1526,  some  in¬ 
teresting  facts  regarding  Tyndale.  Among  other 
things  he  says  that  Tyndale  “  was  so  skilled  in  seven 
languages,  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Italian,  Spanish, 


238  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

English,  French,  that  whichever  he  spoke  you  would 
suppose  it  his  native  tongue  ”  (Demaus,  William  Tin- 
dale,  p.  153).  He  further  adds:  ‘‘that  the  English, 
in  spite  of  the  active  opposition  of  the  king,  were  so 
eager  for  the  Gospel  as  to  affirm  that  they  would  buy 
a  New  Testament  even  if  they  had  to  give  a  hundred 
thousand  pieces  of  money  for  it.” 

191.  As  soon  as  Tyndale’s  English  New  Testa¬ 
ment  reached  England  there  was  a  rushing  demand 
for  it  by  the  common  people,  that  they  might  read  it, 
and  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  that  they  might 
burn  it.  Archbishop  Warham  issued  a  decree  for  its 
destruction.  Bishop  Tunstall  added  fuel  to  the  fire 
by  saying  that  he  could  find  2,000  errors  in  it.  De¬ 
crees  and  denunciations,  however,  were  of  little  avail 
to  stay  its  popularity.  By  order  of  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  the  books  were  bought  up  and  burned  in 
London,  Oxford  and  Antwerp.  No  attempt  to  check 
the  printers  succeeded.  An  effective  organization  of 
distributers  in  England  was  supplied  by  numerous 
clandestine  shippers  from  the  continent.  The  fight 
was  desperate  on  both  sides,  one  to  disseminate  Tyn- 
dale’s  New  Testament  as  widely  as  possible,  the  other 
to  annihilate  it.  The  bishops  liberally  contributed  to 
buy  up  whole  editions  to  consign  to  the  flames.  Pack- 
ington,  an  English  merchant  at  Antwerp,  was  a  friend 
both  of  Bishop  Tunstall  and  of  Tyndale.  The  bishop 
made  a  contract  with  Packington  to  buy  all  the  books 
he  could,  at  any  cost,  send  them  to  him  and  he  would 
burn  them  at  St.  Pauhs  Cross.  Hall,  the  chronicler. 


0.  iltatfxtr,  So.f^viif 

croimB/w^ii^faUfrcmt^crcmafJfr^tAhlc^en^cfuaAtuf 
(trercb  an^  wto  ^cr.O  tponran  Create  » t^j>  fayt^  /bt 

|)tt  ti,'  t()c/cDf n  ae  t^cu  &ct3?rcfi.2Jn&  feccr  ^cu0|)rcr  tvod  itio^ 
tr()oIcct>cn  at rfeat  fame  rywe.  , 

CCt)cn3fru®  trentatraye  from  t|>c51c'c/an^ cam njfc  rnf^ 
tf)c  fee  of  0al;rlc/an^t^cntrppcuttoa  iiipurajrnc/anbfattK)^ 
unet^cre.  2In^nto<^e  people  cam  ^aryn^e  xvit^ 

tbcm/J>aIr/bI);'nbey^om/nia3micb/  anbctb<r  many;  anb  ca^ 
them  bonne  at  3efu6  fete.  Z'nb|)t  |)ealebtb(m  /m  fo  med;^ 
tbar  t^c  people  tponbreb  /rofetbebom  (Mafe/tbentaymeb 
Tct>bole  /anb  tbc  f)atr  r90o  /  tj)c  blynb<cofe/anb0lcr>'fycbtbt 
0obofifra|)cl. 

1 3^at.  |];3befu0  calUb  bi9bl(ciplcd  to  b»tn  anb  faybe:  3  com# 

^‘9-  pafltonon  tbcpcople/becaufc  they  bare  contyntieb  tritb  me 
notre  itj.bayed/anbbavf  notbinge  toeate:artb  3‘>®yll  not  let 
tbein  beparte  fafiin^e  lefJc  t^ey  peryflbc  in  t^c  traye.  :Snb  b(» 
bifcipleofaib  ontobmnYrbece  fpulbtve  0etfb  iito^e  breeb  in 
tbetpyibcmeo  a0fbuIbcfuffy(cfo0reacea  multitube^anb3e# 
ftidfaib^  vntotbe:  botremanylove^b^^v'l^  *  (<y^<s 

fevc  anb  a  fcavoc  fyffb<^*^nb  be  c^maunbcbtbe  people  rofy t 
bonne  on  tbe  0ronnbc,anb  toFe  tbe  fere  loreo/anb  tbe  fy flbe» 
cnb  0ave  rbanFf  /  anb  braFc  tbem/anb0a\)e  to  by*  bifoplee/ 
anb  byobtfcipIce0aoctbetotbepeople.  2(nbtbeyaIIatc/anb 
were  fiiffyfebanb  they  tcFe  vppe  of  tbe  b:oFe  meote  tbottrO* 
lefte  otf.baeFerf  full.  ^b<F  “‘I*  befybe 

•tremcn  anb  cbylbrcn.^r^b^  f^nt  atraye  tbe  peoDle/anb  toFc 
fbvppeanbcam  in  totbe  partie0ofma0ba(a: 

Ctif  youCli^tfrt 

!bm  rmtt  to  Itim  dtt  pltorifto 

with  tbcfobuce*  al(b  /onbbyb  teptebitu 
in0etbat  bet»oIbcfbct»e  tb?(omefy0nefrd  be# 
»en.^^can(trereb  anb  faibe  unto  them:  .3t  eren 
ye  faye/Tuefballbo’i’efayretpebber.anbtbatbecaujeibe  (Fyc 
yoreeb:?!  the  morni0e:ye(aye/tobaye(b4ll>efo^  t»ebb<r/x 
that  bccaufe  tbe  (Fyeietr5bclcud4nbrecb,0yeypocryrf/yc» 


'I’yndale’s  New  Testament.  A.D.  1525 
Matthew  15  :  27  to  16  :  3 


■  :  . -■  ''  - 

.  .  ■  *'  r  '  r '  '  ■  i; 

.  V-*-. 


J 


i 


a 


A'i 


I 


1 


Tyndale  s  English  Opponents  239 

describes  the  case  as  follows :  So  Packington  came 
to  William  Tyndale,  and  said,  ‘  William,  I  know  thou 
art  a  poor  man,  and  I  have  gotten  thee  a  merchant.’ 
‘Who?’  said  Tyndale.  ‘The  Bishop  of  London.’ 
‘  He  will  burn  them,’  said  Tyndale.  ‘  Yea,  marry,’ 
quoth  Packington.  And  so  forward  went  the  bar¬ 
gain.  The  Bishop  had  the  books,  Packington  the 
thanks,  and  Tyndale  the  money  ”  (Hoare,  Evolution 
of  Eng.  Bible,  p.  148). 

192.  With  persistent  energy  the  enemies  of  Tyn- 
dale’s  translation  tried  to  obliterate  it.  All  the 
machinations  of  the  court  seem  to  have  been  employed 
to  stamp  out  so  dangerous  a  heresy.  Even  King 
Henry,  who  had  paid  no  heed  to  Tyndale’s  appeals, 
described  the  works  as  “imagened  and  onely  fayned 
to  enfecte  the  peopull.”  The  success  of  their  cam¬ 
paign  of  destruction  may  be  partially  inferred  from 
the  scant  remnants  now  extant  of  Tyndale’s  transla¬ 
tion.  Of  the  quarto  edition  begun  at  Cologne  and 
completed  at  Worms,  there  is  known  to  be  in  exist¬ 
ence  just  one  little  fragment,  now  in  the  Grenville 
Library  in  the  British  Museum.  It  consists  of  thirty- 
one  leaves  and  contains  a  prologue,  a  list  of  New 
Testament  books,  a  wood-cut  of  an  angel  holding  up 
an  inkstand  into  which  Matthew  is  dipping  his  pen^ 
and  Matthew  i:  i  to  22 :  12.  Eight  of  these  sheets 
were  printed  by  Quentel  in  Cologne  in  1525,  and  car¬ 
ried  by  Tyndale  to  Worms.  Of  the  octavo  edition 
one  copy,  perfect  except  for  a  missing  title-page,  is 
now  preserved  in  the  Baptist  College  at  Bristol,  Eng- 


240  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

land ;  another  copy,  very  imperfect,  in  the  library  of 
St.  Paul’s,  London.  The  fierceness  and  destructive¬ 
ness  of  the  opponents  of  Tyndale’s  translation  sys¬ 
tematically  followed  up  and  destroyed  the  thousands 
of  copies  that  had  been  widely  sold  throughout  Eng¬ 
land  and  Scotland.  Of  the  estimated  18,000  copies 
printed  between  1525  and  1528,  the  two  copies  just 
mentioned  are  the  only  known  fragments. 

193.  Tyndale’s  English  New  Testament  is  unique. 
It  is  not  a  translation  of  a  translation,  as  is  Wycliffe’s, 
but  is  rendered  out  of  the  original  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  probably  as  published  by  Erasmus 
in  1516,  and  revised  in  1522.  He  made  use  of  such 
helps  as  the  Vulgate,  Erasmus’  Latin  translation  of 
his  own  Greek  text,  and  Luther’s  German  translation. 
Many  of  the  errors  charged  against  Tyndale’s  Eng¬ 
lish  New  Testament  are  due  to  the  differences  be¬ 
tween  Erasmus’  Greek  text  and  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
The  violent  opposition  of  the  church  authorities  was 
due  to  causes  other  than  the  mere  putting  of  the  Bible 
into  the  hands  of  the  common  people.  Tyndale  had 
followed  the  custom  common  in  the  issuance  of  the 
Vulgate,  and  had  incorporated  marginal  notes  in  his 
earlier  editions.  These  were  largely  controversial, 
and  only  served  to  fire  the  wrath  of  his  adversaries. 
In  later  editions,  however,  they  were  omitted.  Again, 
he  was  not  careful  to  retain  in  his  translation  the  long- 
cherished  words  of  the  Vulgate  and  of  the  church, 
but  freely  translated  the  Greek  into  words  that 
seemed  to  him  best  to  convey  the  thought  of  the  orig- 


Ty7idale  s  Last  Translatio7is  241 

inal.  Such  freedom  brushed  away  many  age-long 
cherished  ecclesiastical  terms,  and  launched  upon  the 
public  words  that  sounded  strange  in  so  dearly  be¬ 
loved  a  book  as  the  Bible.  Then  the  determination 
and  persistency  of  Tyndale’s  friends  in  their  clandes¬ 
tine  methods  of  importing  his  New  Testaments  into 
England,  and  their  success  in  giving  it  a  wide  distri¬ 
bution,  only  inflamed  the  church  authorities  to  more 
desperate  methods  of  suppression.  But  its  real  value, 
despite  all  opposition,  was  so  great  as  to  make  it  a 
really  dangerous  weapon  against  many  of  the  hollow 
claims  of  the  church.  Its  close-fitting  faithfulness  to 
the  Greek  established  its  importance  as  the  best  and 
truest  translation  of  the  Bible  for  all  classes. 

194.  As  soon  as  Tyndale’s  New  Testament  had 
been  well  launched  upon  the  English  reading  public, 
he  took  up  the  work  of  translating  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  out  of  the  Hebrew  text.  In  1530  he  j^ublishcd 
a  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  accompanied  with 
marginal  notes  that  are  severely  controversial.  Their 
form  would  indicate  that  they  were  printed  sep¬ 
arately,  for  Genesis  and  Numl^ers  appear  in  black¬ 
face  type,  as  over  against  the  other  three,  whicli 
are  plain  Roman.  In  1531  the  book  of  Jonah  ap¬ 
peared  in  translation, — the  Pentateuch  and  Jonah 
being  the  only  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  pub¬ 
lished  during  Tyndale’s  lifetime.  He  spent  the  next* 
three  years  busily  engaged  in  a  revision  of  his  earlier 
work.  In  1534  he  published  a  revision  of  his  Penta¬ 
teuch,  1530  edition,  and  of  the  New  Testament  of  the 


242  Tyndale  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

1525  edition.  The  motives  that  led  him  to  revise  his 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  rather  than  to  com¬ 
plete  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  (i)  to  meet 
the  sharp  criticism  that  had  been  hurled  at  his  first 
edition,  and  (2)  to  checkmate  a  revision,  wholly  un¬ 
authorized,  by  his  old  amanuensis,  George  Joye,  which 
appeared  the  same  year.  Joye  had  corrected  some 
of  the  earlier  printers’  errors,  made  changes  that  more 
closely  harmonized  with  the  Vulgate,  and  his  own 
theological  opinions.  Tyndale  made  several  impor¬ 
tant  improvements  upon  his  earlier  editions.  He  sup¬ 
plied  brief  introductions  to  each  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  books,  except  Acts  and  Revelation,  took  the 
sting  out  of  many  of  his  marginal  notes,  and  at  the 
end  of  the  volume  added  the  “  Sarum  ”  epistles,  ex¬ 
tracts  from  the  Old  Testament  to  be  used  in  the 
church  services  “  upon  certain  days  of  the  year.”  In 
this  collection  Tyndale  also  included  several  passages 
from  the  Apocrypha.  This  was  the  end  of  Tyndale’s 
printed  work. 

195.  The  persistent  and  continued  efforts  of  Tyn¬ 
dale  and  his  friends  had  made  a  distinct  gain  in  the 
distribution  of  the  New  Testament.  Though  the  op¬ 
position  to  his  work  had  somewhat  lost  strength  he 
dared  not  return  to  England.  In  fact,  his  work  had 
already  so  impressed  Cromwell  and  Cranmer  that 
they  began  to  agitate  a  translation  of  the  Bible  into 
English  under  royal  patronage.  Tyndale,  however, 
took  up  his  residence  at  the  “  English  House,”  an 
English  merchants’  club,  in  Antwerp.  Here  he 


Tyndale  s  Martyrdom  243 

worked,  apparently  safe,  amid  a  lot  of  his  merchant 
friends.  But  the  bitterness  of  the  opposition  now 
showed  itself  by  sending  or  employing  an  English¬ 
man,  Henry  Philips,  a  Romanist,  to  do  the  treacher¬ 
ous  deed.  After  pretending  to  great  friendship  for 
Tyndale,  he  stealthily  and  murderously  betrayed  him, 
in  May,  1535,  into  the  hands  of  officers  of  Emperor 
Charles  V.  They  seized  him  and  carried  him  off  and 
thrust  him  into  a  dungeon  in  Vilvorde  Castle,  near 
Brussels.  While  confined  in  this  place  he  was  per¬ 
mitted,  it  is  thought,  in  response  to  an  appeal  to  the 
governor  of  the  castle,  to  use  his  Hebrew  Bible,  gram¬ 
mar,  and  dictionary,  and  possibly  his  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament.  For  during  his  imprisonment  he  is  credited 
with  having  once  more  revised  his  New  Testament, 
adding  headings  to  the  chapters  of  the  Gospels  and 
the  Acts.  While  here  he  is  also  thought  to  have 
translated  Joshua  to  2  Chronicles,  though  its  publica¬ 
tion  was  left  in  the  hands  of  his  friend,  John  Rogers. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  Henry  VI H  or  Cromwell 
had  anything  to  do  with  his  arrest  or  imprisonment, 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  there  any  scrap  of  evidence 
to  show  that  either  of  them  lifted  a  finger  to  release 
him  from  the  grasp  of  his  enemies.  On  October  6, 
1536,  Tyndale  was  brought  to  trial,  and  being  proved 
a  heretic,  was  condemned  to  death.  He  was  tied  to 
a  stake,  praying  in  these,  his  last  words :  “  Lord,  open 
the  King  of  England’s  eyes,”  and  then  was  strangled 
and  burned. 

196.  But  Tyndale  won  his  battle.  In  the  face  of 


244  Tyndale^  s  Version  of  the  Bible 

fierce  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  church  author¬ 
ities,  he  determined  to  give  the  Bible  to  the  common 
people  in  their  native  tongue,  the  English  language. 
With  slight  regard  for  self,  his  whole  purpose  con¬ 
centrated  on  the  one  task,  he  made  himself  an  exile, 
fled  from  place  to  place  to  accomplish  his  task,  and 
finally  succeeded,  by  the  help  of  close  friends,  in 
printing  and  having  distributed  in  England,  in  large 
numbers,  his  New  Testament  in  the  English  language. 
Though  the  books  were  bought  up  and  burnt  in  quan¬ 
tities,  their  very  appearance  and  use  created  an  appe¬ 
tite  for  the  Bible  in  English  that  could  not  be  satisfied. 
The  flames  might  burn,  and  annihilate  the  books,  but 
the  appetite  created  thereby  was  inextinguishable. 
Popular  requirements  soon  reached  the  throne,  and, 
in  spite  of  earlier  adverse  action  towards  Tyndale’s 
work,  made  an  impression  that  could  not  be  erased. 
The  court  and  the  government  wisely  recognized  the 
necessity  of  providing  some  edition  of  the  English 
Bible  for  popular  use.  Even  in  1534,  before  Tyndale’s 
death,  a  convocation  under  the  presidency  of  Cran- 
mer  petitioned  the  King  that  he  would  “  vouchsafe 
to  decree  that  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into 
English  should  be  made  by  certain  honest  and  learned 
men  whom  the  King  should  nominate ;  and  that  the 
Scriptures  so  translated  should  be  delivered  to  the 
people  according  to  their  learning.”  This  was  one 
of  the  fruits  of  the  life  and  labors  of  the  indefatigable 
and  immortal  Tyndale. 

197.  Tyndale’s  victory  had  far-reaching  results. 


Influence  on  Authorized  Version  245 

He  was  a  master  of  a  simple  and  forceful  literary 
style.  This,  combined  with  exactness  and  breadth 


A 

/  > 

^He|BREw 


• 

1 

1 

200— 

3C0 - 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- i'V  -- 

S^RIAcfBlBLE 

<1/  ' 

ov  1 

; 

1 

1 

- T - 

1 

1 

- 1  ^i■— — 

1 

- - 

1 

- 1 

VUL 

GATE 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

a: 

u 

u 

UJ 

5 

S 

1 

2' 

_ uu _ 

•  0 

H 

Z 

RIAC 

< 

0 

.J 

£ 

(J 

if) 

UJ 

X 

> 

if) 

- 

I 

- .  ...  ■■  :  - 

Diagram  showing  the  beginnings  of  modern  versions, ‘early  in  the  sixteenth  century 

of  scholarship,  led  him  so  to  translate  the  Greek  New 
Testament  into  English  as  largely  to  determine  the 


246  Tyiidale  s  Vei^sion  of  the  Bible 

character,  form,  and  style  of  the  Authorized  Version. 
There  have  been  some  painstaking  calculations  to 
determine  just  how  large  a  part  Tyndale  may  have 
had  in  the  production  of  the  version  of  1611.  A 
comparison  of  Tyndale’s  version  of  i  John  and  that  of 
the  Authorized  Version  shows  that  nine-tenths  of  the 
latter  is  retained  from  the  martyred  translator’s  work. 
Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  retains  five-sixths  of 
Tyndale’s  translation.  These  proportions  are  main¬ 
tained  throughout  the  entire  New  Testament.  Such 
an  influence  as  that  upon  the  English  Bible  cannot 
be  attributed  to  any  other  man  in  all  the  past  (De- 
maus,  William  Tindale,  p.  162). 

More  than  that,  Tyndale  set  a  standard  for  the 
English  language  that  moulded  in  part  the  character 
and  style  of  that  tongue  during  the  great  Elizabethan 
era  and  all  subsequent  time.  He  gave  the  language 
fixity,  volubleness,  grace,  beauty,  simplicity,  and  di¬ 
rectness.  His  influence  as  a  man  of  letters  was  per¬ 
manent  on  the  style  and  literary  taste  of  the  English 
people,  and  of  all  who  admire  the  superiority  and 
epochal  character  of  the  literature  of  the  sixteenth 
century. 


CHAPTER  XXII 


VERSIONS  CLOSE  TO  TYNDALE’s 

198.  Tyndale’s  last  words  and  prayer,  “  Lord, 
open  the  king  of  England’s  eyes,”  as  he  was  being 
strangled  by  the  executioner,  to  be  burnt  at  the  stake 
were  even  at  that  moment  being  fulfilled.  The  one 
man  upon  whom  was  laid  the  burden  of  carrying  out 
the  spirit  of  the  petition  of  the  convocation  of  1534 
was  Myles  Coverdale.  Now,  this  man  Coverdale 
attempted  through  the  liberal  members  of  the  old 
party  to  work  “out  a  reformation  from  within 
through  them.”  He  was  early  an  intimate  friend  of 
Cromwell  and  More,  and  it  may  be  that  under  their 
encouragement  he  began  to  prepare  for  his  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Bible.  If  Foxe  is  to  be  believed,  Cover- 
dale  met  Tyndale  in  Hamburg,  and  helped  him  on 
his  translation  of  the  Pentateuch.  Elowever  this  may 
be,  one  thing  seems  certain,  viz.,  that  he  was  busily 
engaged  in  preparing  a  translation  of  the  Bible  into 
English,  though  it  is  positively  asserted  that  he 
was  neither  a  Hebrew  nor  a  Greek  scholar.  King 
Plenry’s  antipathy  to  Tyndale  and  his  work,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  growing  popular  demand  for  the 
Bible  in  English,  on  the  other,  may  have  led  the 
monarch  to  approve  of  the  plan  of  his  friend  Cover- 
dale,  thus  encouraging  him  to  complete  his  transla- 

247 


248  Versions  Close  to  Tyndale  s 

tion.  Besides,  Cromwell,  Secretary  of  State,  gave  him 
his  active  support  in  getting  his  work  before  the 
public. 

199.  The  moral  and  financial  support  of  high  offi¬ 
cials  immediately  brought  Coverdale’s  work  into  pub¬ 
licity.  While  Tyndale  was  incarcerated  in  Vilvorde 
Castle,  in  Belgium  (in  1535),  an  English  Bible  sud¬ 
denly  appeared  in  England.  It  had  evidently  crept 
in  from  the  continent.  It  was  printed  in  black  letter, 
small  folio  size,  and  dated,  “fynished  the  fourth  daye 
of  October.”  Either  Coverdale’s  relation  to  the  au¬ 
thorities  or  his  desire  to  court  their  approval  is  seen 
in  an  effusive  dedication  to  Henry  VIII,  signed  by 
his  “humble  subjecte  and  dayle  oratour,  Myles  Cov- 
erdale.”  It  gave  neither  printer’s  name  nor  place  of 
printing.  The  title-page  of  the  original  edition  stated 
that  this  Bible  had  been  “translated  out  of  Douche 
[German]  and  Latyn  in  to  Englishe.”  The  first  im¬ 
print  of  this  edition  left  out  “  Douche  and  Latyn.” 
It  has  been  ascertained  that  the  printed  sheets  reached 
London  in  the  winter  of  1535-36,  and  that  they  were 
bound  and  supplied  with  a  new  title-page  by  Nycol- 
son,  which  carried  on  it  “faythfully  translated  in 
Englysh  and  newly  oversene  and  corrected.”  The 
cutting  out  of  “  Douche  and  Latyn  ”  from  the  title- 
page,  as  in  the  second  issue  mentioned  above,  prob¬ 
ably  avoided  the  current  antagonism  in  the  church 
to  Lutheranism,  and  also  may  have  led  the  reader 
to  suppose  that  the  book  was  translated  out  of  the 
original  Greek  and  Hebrew.  At  any  rate,  the  book 


Mvles  Covekdale 


.V 


V'^ 


■:3 

■■■A 

■i 


''  15^''^  f*'" 


7M 


■J 


m 


V'l'f 


M’l 

:;;vVfi 


>-( 


-  i 

■■  '  H 


Character  of  Cauerdale  s  Bible  249 

seems  not  to  have  been  arrested  in  its  circulation, 
though  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  either  any 
royal  prohibition  or  sanction  for  the  earlier  editions. 

200.  Myles  Coverdale  must  be  credited  with  hav¬ 
ing  published  the  first  complete  Bible  in  the  Englisli 
language.  In  contrast  with  the  incomplete  work 
of  Tyndale,  it  was  not  translated  from  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts,  but  was  based  on 
(i)  the  Zurich  Bible  of  Zwingli  and  Leo  Juda,  com¬ 
pleted  in  1529;  (2)  Luther’s  German;  (3)  The  Vul¬ 
gate;  (4)  the  Latin  text  of  Pagninus  (1528);  and 
(5)  probably  on  Tyndale’s  work  in  the  Pentateuch. 
In  the  New  Testament  Coverdale’s  main  sources  of 
help  were  Tyndale’s  latest  (1534-5)  revision  and 
Luther’s  German  (1522).  In  that  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  of  which  Tyndale  had  published  no  trans¬ 
lation,  viz.,  the  historical  books,  Joshua  to  2  Chron¬ 
icles,  the  poetical  and  prophetical  books,  Coverdale 
made  the  most  familiar  use  of  Zwingli’s  Zurich  Bible. 
It  is  apparent  then  that  Coverdale  was  essentially  an 
editor,  who  gathered  together  the  best  materials 
within  reach,  and  so  selected  and  so  modified  them  as 
to  construct  a  Bible  that  would  meet  both  the  demands 
of  the  public  and  those  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities. 
His  great  good  sense,  as  shown  in  the  use  of  lan¬ 
guage  to  secure  beauty,  harmony,  and  melody,  made 
him  a  wise  editor.  His  essentially  peaceful  nature 
led  him  to  restore  many  beloved  ecclesiastical  terms 
that  Tyndale  had  thrown  out  for  new  and  more  exact 
translations  of  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts. 


250  Versions  Close  to  Tyndale  s 

Indeed,  so  happy  are  some  of  the  translations  of  Cov- 
erdale  that  they  were  perpetuated  in  the  Authorized 
Version. 

201.  Coverdale’s  Bible  so  met  the  requirements 
of  all  parties  that  it  immediately  achieved  popularity. 
In  1537 — one  year  after  the  martyrdom  of  Tyndale — 
two  revised  editions  appeared,  carrying  this  state¬ 
ment,  set  forth  with  the  king’s  most  gracious 
license.”  In  1538,  he  published  a  revised  New  Tes¬ 
tament  with  the  Latin  in  parallel  columns.  Thus 
within  twelve  years  from  the  issuance  of  Tyndale’s 
New  Testament,  which  had  to  be  printed  abroad  and 
clandestinely  carried  into  England,  we  find  the  entire 
Bible,  translated,  printed,  and  distributed  with  royal 
approval — and  this  within  one  year  after  the  treach¬ 
erous  destruction  of  Tyndale. 

The  character  and  position  of  the  men  who  fos¬ 
tered  the  enterprise  doubtless  aided  in  the  reception 
accorded  Coverdale’s  work.  Tyndale  was  a  genius, 
was  self-poised,  original,  and  creative.  He  was  every 
whit  a  scholar,  and  stood  absolutely  on  his  convic¬ 
tions,  regardless  of  consequences.  Coverdale  was 
an  imitator,  a  follower  in  the  tracks  of  others,  har- 
monistic,  sympathetic,  and  gentle.  He  was  modest, 
dependent,  and  regarded,  always  and  everywhere,  the 
interests  of  others  in  his  decisions.  Tyndale  had  the 
conviction  that  he  had  a  great  mission  in  this  world 
and  bent  everything  to  accomplish  that  end.  Cover- 
dale  apparently  came  into  his  own  without  any  burn¬ 
ing  zeal  that  could  not  be  quenched.  Tyndale’s  tre- 


C^XJ-C^prer. 

^  <6rt&ct^7P7W7(c60Dcrt^ctt?Ater6, 

fo  f]^^(c  t^oo  fpn^e  t^e  after  hta 
n^  Yearcs.CSTeucitflwaye amende  (e 
wn  oz  cig^t,  for  t^n  fticwcfi  nor  iv^acmilc 
r^  P7al  come  opo  eart^.Y3Q^e  t^c  cbuOcs  arc 
fall, peureout  ra^ne  vpon  t\>c  cavtl), 
2ln^  ttJ^e  f  nrc  fallec^,(ii^^r  it  be  toivar 
Det^eroiit^crnort^>'n  tvbat  place  fo  cuer  it 
f*U,t^cre  It  t^atregarOct^  p  ir >^»i 

Of,  (l7al  not  (owe :  anO  t^ot  rej  pectc 

»«co  tl;e  cIoaOc9,  ft)al  not  reape .  tT  o  w  1 1  tc 
eisc^cn  tnowef^  nott^e  veayeef  t\)c  rvyn- 
Of>ncr^ow  y  boneoaref^UcOmamot^erff 
rwembe:  (^nen(bt|^ou  (no  weft  nettle  wo: 
(«0Of  <0>Ob,w|>i<^i5t^ewo:(etna(ler  of»ilI. 

^  Ceafe  net  t^oiitlierfbie  wit^  ti}^  ^art- 
bestofowet^YleOCjW^et^entbem  f  mor 
DYngeoimt^e  enen^ngeifort^ou  (nowefi 
not  w|)ct^er  t^is  or  p(?all  pio|pcrc,7  yf 
t^y  bot^  t4(e,{t  (ot^e  better.  iC^elig^t  ia 
(wete,7  4  p(e4(^itttttbin9^  it  foi  t^^e  eyes 
co(o(e  vpon  t^e  Qotttte .  Xf  4  man  ly  u  e  ma^ 
tiy  ye4red,4nb  begUb  in  tbeni  aUSet  l;im  re 
iBcmbre  t^ebayco  of  barcFneffe,  w^td)  p7al 
he  many:t  w^n  conte^all  twinges  ft)al 

bebut  V4nite»25eg(4bt^(  <D  t^ouyonge 
nMn)tn  t^y  yont^ ,  anb  lot  t^ine  ^ert  b  t  mc^ 
rymt^y  yongebayro:  fblowet^e  wayeo  of 
owne^^,4nbt^ef^  of  t^tneeyes: 
botbe  t^  (Wc,t^4t  <S>ob  \qal  brmge  t^e  in 
totobgment  (or  ollt^et^mgeo. 


C'overdale’s  Bible.  A.  D.  1535 
Ecclesiastes  ii  ;  1-9 


251 


Work  of  John  Rogers 

mendous  energy  and  love  of  the  right  led  him  to 
translate  into  English  the  best  biblical  texts  that  he 
could  find.  Coverdale’s  marvelous  capacity  for  har¬ 
mony,  in  spite  of  his  lack  of  scholarship,  led  him  to 
compile  and  to  publish  the  first  complete  Bible  in  the 
English  language.  Each  man  was  a  kind  of  comple¬ 
ment  to  the  other,  and  together  they  were  able  to  set 
forth  the  English  Bible  in  such  form  and  character 
as  to  command  the  English  Bible-reading  public. 

202.  Bible  translation  and  revision  were  now*  in 
the  air.  Popular  demands  and  royal  favor  joined 
hands  to  aid  such  work.  John  Rogers,  an  Oxford 
graduate  of  1525,  went  to  Antwerp  some  years  after¬ 
wards  as  chaplain  to  the  “  English  House,”  in  which 
Tyndale  was  making  his  home.  Here  he  soon  be¬ 
came  a  close  friend  of  the  translator,  and,  as  some 
think,  of  Coverdale.  When  Tyndale  was  spending 
his  last  days  in  Vilvorde  Castle,  he  turned  over  to 
John  Rogers  his  unpublished  work,  his  translation 
of  Joshua  to  2  Chronicles  inclusive.  Rogers  doubt¬ 
less  was  acquainted  with  the  version  that  Coverdale 
published  in  1535.  But  now,  being  in  possession  of 
all  that  Tyndale  had  translated,  both  published  and 
unpublished,  he  seems  to  have  desired  to  give  it  to 
the  public  in  a  complete  edition.  Accordingly  he 
prepared  a  Bible  with  Tyndale’s  work  from  Genesis 
to  2  Chronicles  inclusive,  Coverdale’s  version  for  the 
rest  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha,  and 
Tyndale’s  New  Testament  of  his  last  revision  in 
^535-  "This  mass  of  material  was  revised  with  few 


252  Versions  Close  to  Tyndale  s 

changes,  furnished  with  introductions,  summaries  of 
chapters,  illustrations,  and  some  controversial  mar¬ 
ginal  notes. 

That  the  name  William  Tyndale  ’’  should  not 
appear  on  the  title-page  seemed  essential  to  the  pub¬ 
lic  sale  of  the  work,  therefore  it  bears  the  name, 
“  Thomas  Matthew,”  supposed  to  be  either  a  pseudo¬ 
nym  for  John  Rogers,  or  the  name  of  some  merchant 
who  backed  up  the  enterprise  in  a  financial  way.  At 
any  rate,  the  book  began  to  be  printed,  it  seems,  in 
Antwerp,  where  Rogers  had  for  several  years  held 
the  somewhat  leisurely  office  of  chaplain.  When  the 
printing  reached  Isaiah  there  was  a  stoppage  for  lack 
of  funds.  Two  London  merchants  came  to  the  res¬ 
cue  and  carried  the  work  through  to  completion  in 
1537- 

203.  This  Matthew  Bible  was  12  by  8  inches  in 
size  and  printed  in  black  letter.  Its  boldest  stroke 
is  its  dedication  to  ‘‘The  moost  noble  and  gracyous 
Prynce  Kyng  Henry  the  Eyght  and  Queen  Jane,” 
and  signed  “  Thomas  Matthew.”  The  “  Prayer  of 
Manasses,”  omitted  from  Coverdale,  was  taken  from 
the  French  Bible  of  Olivetan.  The  dedication  may 
have  been  advised  by  such  men  as  Cranmer  and 
Cromwell,  who  seem  to  have  welcomed  its  appear¬ 
ance.  Cranmer  in  a  letter  to  Cromwell  says,  “You 
shall  receive  by  the  bringer  thereof  a  bible  in  Eng¬ 
lish,  both  of  a  new  translation  and  of  a  new  print 
.  .  .  so  far  as  I  have  read  thereof,  I  like  it  better 

than  any  other  translation  heretofore  made,  .  ♦  , 


253 


King  Favors  Matthew  Bible 

I  pray  you,  my  Lord,  that  you  will  exhibit  the  book 
unto  the  King’s  highness,  and  to  obtain  of  his  grace, 
if  you  can,  a  license  that  the  same  may  be  sold  and 
read  of  every  person,  without  danger  of  any  act, 
proclamation,  or  ordinance,  heretofore  granted  to 
the  contrary,  until  such  time  that  we  bishops  shall 
set  forth  a  better  translation,  which  I  think  will  not 
be  till  a  day  after  doomsday.”  Within  a  week  Crom¬ 
well  replies  that  he  had  “  obtained  of  his  grace  that 
the  same  shall  be  allowed  by  his  authority  to  be 
bought  and  read  within  this  realm  ”  (Park.  Soc.  Let¬ 
ter,  194). 

Thus  Henry  VIII,  who  had  proscribed  Tyndale’s 
New  Testament  in  1525,  who  apparently  made  no 
effort  to  save  the  life  of  its  translator  in  1536,  within 
one  year  after  his  martyrdom  authorized  the  sale  and 
use  of  Tyndale’s  work,  though  under  another  name. 
Thus,  by  the  influence  of  Cranmer,  the  co-operation 
of  Cromwell,  and  the  authorization  of  Henry  VHI 
the  Matthew  Bible  was  given  free  course  on  English 
soil.  Being  a  compilation,  as  it  were,  of  Tyndale 
and  Coverdale,  it  was  the  best  English  Bible  in  print. 

204.  There  w'ere  now  two  English  Bibles, 
Coverdale’s  and  Matthew’s,  which  were  sold  on 
authorization  of  the  king.  But  the  decree  had  gone 
no  further.  Cromwell  was  a  shrewd  politician  and  a 
far-sighted  churchman.  He  doubtless  saw  the  deficien¬ 
cies  of  the  two  English  revisions  that  were  so  freely 
circulated  by  royal  decree.  Coverdale’s  Bible  had 
been  compiled  from  various  sources,  and  not  trans- 


254  Versions  Close  to  Tyndale' s 

lated  from  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek.  Mat¬ 
thew’s  Bible  was  a  compilation  of  translations  of 
varying  values,  whose  marginal  notes  carried  here 
and  there  a  sting  of  a  controversial  character.  Be¬ 
sides,  royal  discovery  of  the  Tyndale  translations 
under  the  mask  of  “  Matthew,”  might  precipitate  a 
storm  in  the  court.  Consequently  Cromwell  secured 
the  services  of  Coverdale  to  prepare  a  revised  Bible 
that  should  be  free  from  the  objections  of  the  two 
already  authorized.  Coverdale  was  to  make  the  trans¬ 
lation,  as  far  as  possible,  more  faithfully  to  represent 
the  Hebrew  and  Latin  texts  of  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot.  Coverdale’s  deficiency  in  Hebrew  and 
Greek  learning  seems  to  have  been  supplemented  by 
his  employment  of  scholars  efficient  in  these  languages. 
His  editorial  sagacity,  his  popular  grasp  of  the  needs 
of  the  times,  his  power  to  use  others,  and  his  favor 
at  court,  seem  to  have  combined  in  him  just  those  ele¬ 
ments  of  character  that  could  produce  a  Bible  that 
would  be  acceptable  to  all  parties. 

205.  The  editorial  work  having  been  done.  Cover- 
dale  could  find  no  facilities  in  London  for  executing 
the  work  on  the  scale  that  he  had  marked  out  for  it. 
With  Richard  Grafton,  the  London  publisher,  he 
went  to  Paris  in  the  spring  of  1538.  With  Regnault, 
the  French  printer,  and  under  royal  license,  the  print¬ 
ing  began.  But  the  inquisition  uttered  its  voice,  and 
ordered  the  work  to  be  confiscated.  By  shrewd  man¬ 
agement  and  trickery  equal  to  that  of  the  inquisitors, 
Coverdale  safely  transferred  printed  sheets,  printers, 


C'lJe.w.Cliaptet. 

i*  f?ctie,»ceceaueti)  t!jc  Cpgne  of  l)t8  If&tltlf. 
f)e  ccceauctt)  cetbacoes  of  a5enot>icD,f  i9  cepebeitOco 
of  yUf  becauCe  be  (betbeb  tjpm  tbc  tce3fuce.f)c  DpctO 
aiib  inhanaOeb  t)i»  (onne  rapsnetb  rn  b>9  Heabc. 


^outetI)attFncTXja^ 
foa  fi>cbet)ntot^  Deett).  3linD 
t^e  p?opl)ete  3f^l?  tlK  fonne  of 
3mo^  came  to  l)tm>anti  fapDe 
t)ntof)i:'Ct)n;sfavtt)^  lo?t)c: 

_ CM,  put  t^pnc  tJOulHolDe  in  an 

o^D^e>  fo;^  t^u  (bait  bie,  anb  not  Ipue .  3nD 
l^e^cbiaturnebljiiifaccto  ptoall,^  p^pcb 
bnto  tl)C  Lo^be,  fapcng ;  3  befecbe  tbc  nouj, 
£>  lLo?b,rememb?e  bom  3  bawe  malbeb  be=» 
fo;te  tbe  tn  truetb  anb  mitb  a  pcrfecte  berte,Qi 
bane  bone  tbatmbicb  i0  saob  m  tbp  fpgb^ 
anb  I^e^ebia  meptefo;{e. 

3nb  it  fo^tuneb  that  ;>♦  af  o;je  3fap  majt 
gone  out  intopmpbble  of  pcourte,^U)o;ibe 
of  f  iozb  came  to  \)u  fapengiturne  agapne, 
onbtelll^Kftta  tbe  captapne  of  mp  people ; 
^bnia>  faptb  tbc  Lo^b  (l5ob  of  ^amb  tbp  fa= 
25  tber;3  baue  bctb  tbp  pJapet ,  ^  fene  tbp  tea^* 
re)Bi.31nb  bebolbe,3  mill  bcale  tbc,  fo  that  ott 
tbc  tbicb  bape  (bait  go  bp  into  tbc  boufe 
of  f  Ho^b.  3llnb  3  mill  abbe  bnto  tbp  ba  pejoi 
pet  fpftene  peare,anb  mill  belpuer  tbc  ^  tbi  lal 
cptie  out  of  tbcbanb  of  tbcbpngeof  3(rp  = 
na,$  mpll  befenbe  tbis^  citic  fo;t  mpne  amne 
fabe,$  foiiDanibmpreruauntesSfabc.  2|nD 


The  (Ireat  I’ihle.  A.D.  1539 
2  Kings  20  :  1-7 


I- 


'  V.  Vil’’"'--'; 


) 


t 

I 


t 


X- 


V, 


'i>'.'  ,<v- 


*v‘< 


'V 


vV*,"' 

‘V; 


Ai 


“  The  Great  Bible 


255 


presses,  type  and  other  outfit  to  London.  In  April, 
1539,  Coverdale’s  new  revision  was  completed.  Be¬ 
cause  of  its  splendid  proportions  and  magnificent 
form  it  was  called  “  The  Great  Bible.”  It  was  in 
large  folio,  black  letter,  and  carried  neither  notes  nor 
dedication.  Its  unique  title-page  reads :  “  The  Byble 
in  Englyshe,  that  is  to  saye  the  content  of  all  the 
holy  Scripture,  both  of  ye  Olde  and  Newe  Testa¬ 
ment,  truly  translated  after  the  veryte  of  the  Hebrue 
and  Greke  Textes,  by  ye  dylygent  studye  of  dyverse 
excellent  learned  men,  expert  in  the  forsayde  tonges. 
Printed  by  Rychard  Grafton  and  Edward  Whitchurch. 
Cum  privilegio  ad  imprimendum  solum,  1539.  .  .  . 

Fynisshed  in  Apryll,  Anno  MCCCCCXXXIX.  A 
Dno  factu  est  istud.” 

One  of  the  remarkable  features  of  this  book  is  its 
artistic  frontispiece.  It  consists  of  a  design  of  Hans 
Holbein,  nine  by  fourteen  inches,  in  which  the  king’s* 
authority  is  set  forth  with  startling  definiteness.  The 
galaxy  of  worthies  here  delineated — the  king  hand¬ 
ing  the  Bible  to  Cromwell  and  Cranmer — was  appar¬ 
ently  one  of  the  methods  of  Coverdale  for  securing 
royal  patronage  and  favor  in  the  distribution  and  use 
of  this  new  work. 

206.  What  now  were  the  biblical  contents  of  this 
Great  Bible?  The  title-page  specifies  that  Cov¬ 
erdale  had  made  use  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  experts 
in  its  preparation.  But  the  short  space  of  time  be¬ 
tween  the  appearance  of  his  own  revision  and  the 
Great  Bible  would  scarcely  permit  much  expert  work 


256  Versions  Close  to  Tyndale  s 

to  be  done.  The  Old  Testament  is  Matthew’s 
(Rogers-Tyndale-Coverdale)  edition,  revised  on  the 
basis  of  Sebastian  Munster’s  Latin  translation  of 
1535.  In  the  New  Testament,  Tyndale’s  translation 
was  the  basis,  revised  by  making  comparison  with* 
the  Latin  translation  of  Erasmus,  and  also  of  the 
Vulgate.  So  that  the  result  of  Coverdale’s  careful 
editorial  supervision,  “  The  Great  Bible  ”  was  only  a 
revised  edition  of  John  Rogers’  Matthew  ”  Bible, 
which  was  the  most  complete  presentation  of  the 
translation  work  of  William  Tyndale,  whose  mar¬ 
tyrdom  had  occurred  only  three  years  earlier  (in 
October,  1536). 

207.  The  hand  of  Cromwell  had  been  supporting 
Coverdale  in  his  great  work,  so  that  without  fear  of 
interference  he  could  prosecute  his  plans  on  a  large 
scale.  In  fact,  “  the  King’s  most  honourable  Coun¬ 
cil  ”  had  taken  enough  active  interest  in  the  enter¬ 
prise  to  cut  out  all  marginal  notes.  The  publication 
of  the  so-called  extra  volume  of  annotations  was 
postponed  indefinitely.  Furthermore  Cromwell,  as 
the  king’s  right-hand  officer,  showed  his  interest  in 
the  work  by  promulgating  in  1536,  but  not  issuing 
until  September,  1538,  an  order  to  the  clergy  through¬ 
out  the  kingdom  to  provide  before  a  specified  day 
“  one  boke  of  the  whole  Bible,  in  the  largest  volume, 
in  Englyshe,  sett  up  in  summe  convenyent  place 
within  the  churche  that  ye  have  cure  of,  whereat  your 
parishioners  may  most  commodiously  resort  to  the 
same  and  rede  yt.”  What  a  revolution!  In  1525-6, 


Use  of  the  Great  Bible 


257 


Tyndale’s  ^New  Testament  was  publicly  burned  at 
St.  Paul’s.  In  1538  the  same  book,  under  another 
cover  and  name,  was  ordered  by  sanction  of  royal 
authority,  if  not  decree,  to  be  placed  in  public  places, 
where  all  could  read  it.  Tyndale  had  been  martyred, 
but  his  battle  had  been  won.  The  Bible  in  English 
was  commanded  to  be  put  in  every  parish  church 
in  the  land.  The  church  historian  Collier  says  that 
a  paper  dating  from  1539  declares:  “Englishmen 
have  now  in  hand,  in  every  church  and  place,  the  Holy 
Bible  in  their  mother  tongue,  instead  of  the  old  fabu¬ 
lous  and  fantastical  books  of  the  “Table  Round,” 
“Lancelot  du  Lake,”  “Bevis  of  Hampton,”  “Guy  of 
Warwick,”  etc.,  and  such  other,  whose  impure  filth 
and  vain  fabulosity  the  light  of  God  has  abolished 
utterly”  (After  Hoare,  p.  194). 

208.  Although  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  not 
actively  engaged  in  the  production  of  the  Great 
Bible,  he  soon  championed  its  cause.  King  Henry 
VIII  gave  to  Cromwell  the  absolute  right  of  licensing 
the  publication  of  the  Bible  for  five  years.  For  the 
second  edition  Archbishop  Cranmer  prepared  a  Preh 
ace,  and  this  edition  appeared  in  April,  1540.  In 
July  and  November  two  other  editions  (third  and 
fourth)  followed.  In  1541  three  editions  (May,  No¬ 
vember;  and  December)  were  issued  from  the  London 
presses.  Six  of  them  carry  Cranmer’s  Preface ;  and 
the  third  and  fifth  have  on  their  title-pages  the  names 
of  Tunstall  and  Heath,  who  had  “  overseen  and 
perused  ”  the  book  “  at  the  commandment  of  the 


258  Versions  Close  to  Ty7idale  s 

King’s  Highness.”  So  Bishop  Tunstall,  who  had  so 
vigorously  condemned,  bought  up,  and  burned  Tyn- 
dale’s  New  Testament,  now  formally,  on  the  title- 
pages  indorses  its  publication  and  use.  Suspicion 
had  been  attached  to  Cromwell’s  acts  and  name,  for 
he  was  sent  to  the  executioner’s  block  in  July,  1540. 
But  the  Bible  had  free  course  for  a  time.  The  sever) 
editions  of  the  Great  Bible  within  two  years  testified 
to  its  immense  popularity  and  the  public  demand  for 
it.  Indeed,  so  firm  a  hold  did  it  take  upon  the 
church  authorities  that  it  formed  the  basis  of  the 
English  Prayer-Book,  and  was  secure  in  its  authority 
as  the  Bible  of  the  English  people  for  thirty  years. 

Its  presence  in  the  churches  where  every  one  could 
approach  and  read  it,  became  an  actual  menace  to  the 
preacher  and  the  public  services.  For  readers  would 
crowd  about  it,  read  and  discuss  it,  while  the  preacher 
was  trying  to  deliver  his  sermon.  These  events  be¬ 
came  so  aggravating  to  the  clergy  that  Henry  VI II 
issued  a  warning  or  injunction  that  every  preacher 
charge  his  congregation  to  use  this  Bible  most  hum¬ 
bly  and  reverently,”  not  “  having  thereof  any  open 
reasoning  in  your  open  taverns  or  alehouses,”  using 
it  “  quietly  and  charitably  every  one  of  you  to  the 
edifying  of  himself,  his  wife  and  family”  (Strype’s 
Cranmer,  Vol.  H,  p.  735-6). 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  the  open  Bible,  it  is 
perfectly  plain  that  the  authorization  of  Cromwell, 
in  putting  it  within  the  reach  of  every  one, 
aroused  the  English  nation  to  a  new  conception  of 


Taverner" s  Bible 


259 


the  meaning  of  Bible  truth,  and  of  their  own  per¬ 
sonal  relation  to  a  forgiving  and  redeeming  Saviour. 
It  also  widened  the  breach  between  the  stern  ecclesi¬ 
astical  sustainers  and  those  who  looked  askance  at 
the  wornout  tenets  of  the  church,  clinging  rather  to 
the  more  liberal  personal  type  of  religion. 

209.  During  the  same  year  that  Coverdale  was 
completing  the  printing  of  his  Great  Bible,  an  Oxford 
scholar,  a  layman  and  lawyer,  R.  Taverner,  was  print¬ 
ing  another  revision.  Taverner  was  a  good  Greek 
scholar,  but  apparently  was  unacquainted  with  He¬ 
brew.  He  dedicated  it  to  King  Henry  in  dignified, 
courteous,  and  straightforward  language.  The  Old 
Testament  followed  the  Matthew  revision  with  only 
slight  changes,  occasioned  by  comparison  with  the 
Vulgate.  The  New  Testament  revision  bears  some 
marks  of  his  Greek  scholarship. 

Taverner’s  Bible  appeared  in  1539,  in  two  editions, 
a  folio  and  a  quarto;  his  New  Testament  appeared 
the  same  year,  separately  in  two  editions,  a  quarto 
and  an  octavo.  The  whole  Bible  was  but  once  re¬ 
printed;  his  Old  Testament  was  adopted  in  a  Bible 
of  1551.  Otherwise  his  revision  was  entirely  super¬ 
seded  by  the  Great  Bible,  now  circulated  and  used  by 
royal  authority. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


THE  GENEVAN,  BISHOPS’,  AND  DOUAI  VERSIONS 

210.  Cromwell’s  political  and  religious  policy  had 
caused  his  downfall  and  execution.  His  wholesale 
confiscation  and  destruction  of  shrines,  images,  and 
other  religious  symbols ;  his  forcible  plundering  of 
abbots,  monks,  and  monasteries ;  his  wrecking  of  even 
the  buildings  connected  with  worship,  stirred  up  a 
revolution  among  the  Roman  Catholic  subjects 
throughout  the  kingdom.  Cromwell’s  head  was  only 
one  of  their  demands.  The  exalted  place  that  he  had 
given  the  English  Bible  and  the  reformation  movement 
could  not  long  be  maintained.  A  most  determined 
reaction  set  in  against  everything  that  looked  like 
Lutheranism  or  the  reformation  that  had  made  such’ 
astounding  progress  on  the  continent,  particularly 
in  Germany.  King  Henry  VIII  was  in  danger.  He 
was  forced  not  simply  to  modify,  but  almost  to  re¬ 
verse  the  policy  inaugurated  by  Cromwell.  In  1543 
“  Parliament  proscribed  all  translations  bearing  the 
name  of  Tyndale.”  It  also  required  that  the  notes 
in  all  other  versions  should  be  expunged.  Further¬ 
more,  it  was  enacted  that  no  laboring  men  or  women 
“  should  read  to  themselves  or  to  others,  publicly  or 
privately,  any  part  of  the  Bible,  under  pain  of  im¬ 
prisonment,.”  In  1546  King  Henry  proscribed  every 
260 


26i 


Edward  VI  and  Reform 

i3ible  and  every  separate  New  Testament,  except  th^ 
Great  Bible.  The  reading  and  use  of  this  was  re¬ 
stricted  to  the  upper  classes — to  the  people  of  leis¬ 
ure,  as  it  were.  At  this  time  Bibles  and  Testaments 
were  burned  by  the  hundreds  to  satisfy  the  anti¬ 
reform  movement,  which  had  taken  off  the  head  of 
Cromwell.  Tunstall  and  Heath,  who  had  caused  their 
names  to  be  printed  on  the  title-pages  of  the  Great 
Bible  in  approval  thereof,  now  said  “  they  never  med¬ 
dled  therewith”  (Strype,  Eccles.  Memorials,  Vol.  I, 
p.  633).  At  the  climax  of  this  reaction  against  the 
reformation  King  Henry  died  (January  28,  1547).  It 
looked  as  if  Bible  translation  work  had  received  its 
death  blow. 

21 1.  With  the  accession  of  Edward  VI,  the  sun 
rose  on  the  reformation.  This  young  king,  even  at 
his  coronation,  affirmed  his  devotion  to  the  Bible, 
commanding  that  it  be  carried  before  him.  His  re¬ 
ligious  and  political  policy  was  that  of  the  reform 
party.  During  his  reign  of  six  and  one-half  years 
(1547-53)  the  English  Bible  was  reprinted  many 
times  and  in  many  editions.  Thirty-five  editions  of 
the  New  Testament  and  thirteen  of  the  Old  were 
issued  from  the  press.  The  king’s  attitude  and 
policy  were  set  forth  in  certain  injunctions  issued  at 
his  coronation.  Among  these  we  find  that  every  bene- 
ficed  person  shall  provide  “  one  book  of  the  whole 
Bible  of  the  largest  volume  in  English,  .  .  .  the 

Paraphrasis  of  Erasmus  also  in  English  upon  the 
Gospels,”  and  shall  set  up  the  same  “  in  some  con- 


262  Genevan^  Bishops^  and  Douai  Versions 

venient  place  within  the  .  .  .  church,  .  .  . 

where  their  parishioners  may  most  commodiously 
resort  unto  the  same  and  read  the  same.”  What  a 
reversal  of  the  last  policy  of  King  Henry !  Reform¬ 
ers,  too,  who  had  fled  to  the  continent  to  escape  the 
wrath  of  King  Henry,  now  came  back  to  meet  the 
welcome  of  the  new  ruler,  and  of  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer.  These  warm  friends  of  the  new  king  formed 
a  choice  group  for  promoting  the  reform.  Cal¬ 
vinism  and  Lutheranism  were  flourishing  under  the 
new  protectorate,  as  over  against  the  policy  of  the 
last  years  of  Henry’s  reign. 

212.  At  the  close  of  Edward’s  all  too  short  reign, 
Mary  Tudor  came  to  the  throne  (1553).  England 
again  fell  back  into  the  hands  and  power  of  Roman 
Catholicism.  Mary  quickly  turned  the  tables  upon 
Protestantism.  She  inaugurated  a  reign  of  terror,  by 
lighting  the  fires  of  Smithfield.  Archbishop  Cranmer 
and  John  Rogers,  with  hundreds  of  others,  were 
burnt  at  the  stake.  Myles  Coverdale,  now  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  escaped  with  difficulty  to  the  continent. 
Scores  of  reformers  took  the  same  road  to  safety. 
But  the  fierceness  of  Mary’s  persecution  defeated  its 
own  purpose.  The  burning  of  such  men  as  Arch¬ 
bishop  Cranmer  caused  a  revolt  in  the  hearts  even 
of  his  opponents.  The  use  of  the  English  Bible  in 
public  was  prohibited,  and  the  copies  placed  in 
churches  by  the  order  of  Edward  VI  were  removed 
and  burnt.  But  there  was  no  searching  nor  spying 
out  hidden  copies  in  order  to  destroy  them.  The  hor- 


The  Geneva  New  Testament  263 

rors  of  Smithfield  and  the  suppression  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Bible  had  driven  into  voluntary  exile  some  of 
the  best  biblical  scholars  of  England.  These  men 
drifted  to  Germany  and  Switzerland,  and  naturally 
took  up  the  cause  they  loved  so  dearly.  After  five 
years  (1553-58)  of  bloody  persecution  and  terror,  in 
which  some  of  the  best  men  of  England  had  suffered 
martyrdom,  Mary  died. 

213.  One  of  the  direct  results  of  the  persecution 
of  Mary  was  the  flight  of  some  of  the  reformers  to 
Geneva,  Switzerland,  the  home  of  Beza,  the  most 
noted  biblical  scholar  of  the  time,  and  of  Calvin,  the 
theologian.  The  city  of  Geneva  was  the  home  of 
free  thought,  hampered  by  no  political  or  religious 
restrictions.  It  was  a  home  of  biblical  scholars  of 
more  than  one  nationality.  Beza’s  critical  and  exe- 
getical  work  had  done  much  to  clear  up  some  of  the 
difficulties  of  translation  and  interpretation.  The 
company  of  English  scholars  now  improved  their 
long  desired  opportunity  to  revise  the  Great  Bible 
and  bring  it  up  to  the  new  standards  of  scholarship. 
Wliittingham,  a  brother-in-law  of  Calvin,  seems  to 
carry  the  credit  for  the  preparation  and  printing  of 
the  Genevan  New  Testament  in  1557,  with  an  intro¬ 
duction  by  Calvin.  The  reviser’s  preface  contains 
some  instructive  information.  He  says,  “  I  have 
divided  the  text  into  verses  [first  marked  on  the  mar¬ 
gins  of  Stephanus’  Greek  Testament  of  1551]  and 
sections  according  to  the  best  editions  in  other  lan¬ 
guages.”  He  provided  marginal  notes  wherever  he 


264  Genevan,  Bishops',  and  Douai  Versions 

could  thereby  explain  obscure  Hebrew  or  Greek 
phrases.  He  also  introduced  in  italics  words  required 
to  complete  the  sense,  but  lacking  in  the  original 
tongues. 

This  was  the  most  complete  and  accurate  English 
New  Testament  that  had  yet  appeared.  Its  merits 
soon  won  for  it  a  hearty  welcome,  even  in  England. 
Its  notable  reception  led  its  promoter  to  engage  in  a 
larger  work  for  the  cause  of  the  reformation  and  of 
biblical  learning. 

214.  Whittingham,  with  the  aid  of  a  group  of 
scholars,  whose  names  we  know  only  in  part,  and 
Coverdale  was  probably  one  of  them,  assiduously 
worked  on  a  revision  of  the  Great  Bible.  This  work 
continued  “  for  the  space  of  two  years  and  more  day 
and  night.”  It  is  reported  that  “  Whittingham,  with 
one  or  two  more,  did  tarry  at  Geneva  an  year  and  a 
half  after  Q.  Elizabeth  came  to  the  Crown  [Nov., 
1558],  being  resolved  to  go  through  with  the  work” 
(Woods,  Athense  Oxon.).  Thus  it  is  evident  that 
not  all  the  group  of  scholars  worked  during  the  entire 
time  of  revision.  The  work  was  completed  and  the 
new  Bible  published  in  1560,  dedicated  to  Queen  Eliz¬ 
abeth  in  simple,  dignified  language.  The  printing  was 
done  at  the  cost  of  the  congregation  at  Geneva, 
among  whose  members  we  find  John  Bodley,  the 
father  of  the  founder  of  the  Bodleian  Library,  at 
Oxford.  He  secured  from  Queen  Elizabeth  the  exclu¬ 
sive  right  to  print  the  Bible  in  England  for  seven  years. 
In  1561  he  printed  a  folio  edition  in  Geneva. 


I 


t 

4 


5 

6 

7 

8 


9 


Aul^an  ApoflIc('  aot  *q$ 
men, net  her.  by  mi,  but 

byiESVS  CHRIST, 

and  God  the  Father  w 
hathe  rai fed  him  from 
the  dead) 

And  all  the  bcethrcn  w 
are  with  me,vnto  y  Churches  oCGalatia: 

Grac^  With  you  and  peace  from  God 
the  Father, &/roni  our  Lord  Icfus  ChnCt, 

Which  gauehim  relffbTourfinnes,,thaf 
he  might  deliuer  vs* from  this  ^  prelcnc 
euilworlde  according  cothewil  of  God 
euen  our  Father, 

To  whome*tc  glorlefor  euerand  eucr/ 
Amen. 

I  marueile  that  ye  are  fo  C)neremoued  a- 
way  VEHO another  “Gofpel, from  him  that 
had  called  you  in  the  grace  of  Chnft, 

Which  1$  not  another  Goy[>r/,  faue  y  there 
be  feme  which  trouble  you, and  intendc  to 
«  peruerc  the  Go /pel  of  Chnlt. 

But  thogh  that  wc,  or  an  ^  Angel  from 
heauen  preache  vnto  you  other  wife  ,  the 
thoi  which  we  hauc  preached  vnto  you, let 
himbe'accur/cd.. 

As  wc  (aid  before, fo  fay  1  nowagaine,If 
anie  man  preache  vnto  you  oihcrwifejthe 
y  ye  haue  recciued,lei  him  be  accur/ed. 


The  Geneva  Bible.  A  D  1560 
Galatians  i  :  1-9 


«r 


r 


1 


'  •r-n 

.V  .  * 


Its  Popularity  and  Use  265 

The  size  of  the  Genevan  version  was  a  quarto, — 
small  in  comparison  with  the  folios  of  Coverdale, 
Matthew,  and  the  Great  Bible.  Another  innovation 
was  the  abandonment  of  black  letter  for  the  plain,  sim¬ 
ple  Roman  type.  As  in  the  New  Testament  of  1557, 
the  chapters  were  divided  into  verses.  The  margins 
carried  terse,  sensible,  explanatory  notes,  that 
smacked  somewhat  of  Calvinism,  though  without  con¬ 
troversial  bitterness. 

215.  The  Geneva  Bible  immediately  sprang  into 
full-grown  popularity.  Its  superiority  to  every  other 
preceding  version,  and  the  silent  assent  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  to  its  distribution  and  use,  gave  it  a  tre¬ 
mendous  impetus  as  an  instrument  of  popular  re¬ 
ligious  reform.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  learned 
revisers  took  as  their  basis  the  Great  Bible,  and  thor¬ 
oughly  revised  the  translation  on  the  evidence  of  the 
best  texts.  The  most  sweeping  changes  were  made 
in  the  prophetical  and  hagiographical  books — books 
unrevised  by  Tyndale.  The  New  Testament  work, 
based  on  Tyndale’s  last  revision,  was  largely  affected 
by  Beza’s  Latin  translation  and  commentary. 

The  Geneva  Bible,  however,  did  not  displace  the 
Great  Bible,  which  had  been  once  more  required  in 
the  churches  for  ecclesiastical  use,  though  its  pres¬ 
ence  everywhere  soon  instituted  comparisons  that 
were  detrimental  to  this  long-established  Bible  of  the 
parish  church.  Thus  the  two  books  were  used  side 
by  side  from  the  beginning  of  Queen  Elizabeth’s 
reign,  until  the  appearance  of  the  Bishops’  Bible  in 


266  GenevaUy  Bis  hop  s\  and  Douai  Versions 

1568.  Thenceforth  the  Geneva  Bible  was  required 
in  increasing  ratio,  so  that  by  1611,  one  hundred  and 
twenty  editions  had  appeared.  Between  1568  and 
1611  sixteen  editions  were  issued  in  octavo,  fifty-two 
in  quarto,  and  eighteen  in  folio. 

216.  Archbishop  Parker,  who  was  a  devoted  and 
learned  biblical  scholar,  took  steps  in  1563-4  for  a 
revision  of  the  Great  Bible.  His  plan  involved  the 
dividing  of  the  whole  Bible  into  parts,  and  the  assign¬ 
ing  of  one  part  to  each  of  a  large  number  of  scholars. 
He  assigned  to  himself  the  offices  of  general  editor 
and  of  overseer  of  the  printing  of  the  text.  At 
least  nine  of  the  revisers  were  bishops,  hence  the  re¬ 
sultant  Bible  was  to  be  called  “  The  Bishops’  Bible.” 
The  directions  given  the  revisers  included  specifica¬ 
tions  that  they  were  to  follow  the  Great  Bible,  except 
where  “  it  varieth  manifestly  ”  from  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek.  They  were  to  regard  especially  the  Latin  ver¬ 
sions  of  Munster  and  Pagninus.  “  Bitter  notes  ”  and 
controversial  matter  were  to  be  omitted.  “  Genealo¬ 
gies  ”  and  other  non-edifying  passages  were  to  be  so 
indicated  as  to  be  passed  over  by  the  reader.  Language 
that  gave  offense  to  good  taste  was  to  be  “  expressed 
with  more  convenient  terms  and  phrases.”  Several 
of  the  bishops  engaged  on  the  work  carried  on  a  frank 
correspondence  with  Archbishop  Parker.  The  work 
was  evidently  done  without  conference  or  consulta¬ 
tion  among  the  revisers,  so  that  we  may  be  prepared 
for  a  ccmsiderable  degree  of  unevenness  in  the  out¬ 
come.  On  the  completion  of  the  revision,  the  edi- 


3  *^tiopccmet!)mVbflDeriu(rc:i^?cpare 
t^e  ibap  trf  (De  ILo^De,  niabc  (lcapgt)t 
t^e  parti  of  out  (150D  m  rtie  Defert.  , 

4  :^ll  Patlcps  C^albc  ocaltcD,  anb  cucrp 
inountapne  atiD  ^II  lapDeloibe:  ibhat 
fo  is  crobeb  flialbc  nmbe  ttcapgl)t,  anD 
tlje  rougl)  (liatbe  niabc  plapnc, 

5  *foi  t\)t  gionc  of  ttjc  Ho^cic  rtiall  ap^ 
pearc,  foi  all  flcflie  (liall  at  once  fee  tljat 
tile  inoutl)  of  tl)c  fLOirtie  fiat!)  fpoben  if. 

6  Xlie  fame  Pope e  fpabe :  /Bqtbe  crpe. 
:Snb  tpe  p^opliete  aunfUiereb ,  caiiat 
diall  3  erpe^  *Xliat  all  fleOie  is  graCfe, 
anb  ttiat  all  tlie  goobline (Tc  tlierof  is  as 
tliefloiiceoftlieftelDe* 

7  ^lie  graffe  is  tbitliereb ,  flic  flourc 
jg  falletli  aU)ap,fo?  tpe  b;eatl)  of  tlie  HoiD 

Wotbert)  Ppon  tliem  :  of  a  truetij  tlje 
people  are  graffe* 

8  graffe  Uittlierttl),anb  file  flourc 
fabetf)  aUiay:  ’pet  tlie  ibo^bt  of  our 
<I5obenbaretlifoztuer. 

9  <50  bp  bnto  rtie  !)pt  lipll  £)  &ion  ilion 
tliac  b^pugeft  goob  nmngts,  ipft  bp  flip 
bopce  ibitlj  pott'cr  SD  tliou  p^eacljer 
l^tcrulalein.lpft  bp  tbitbout  feare,  ^  fap 
bnto  tbe  rtrtcs  of^ba  :26tl)olbe  pouc 
<500, 


The  Bishops’  Piible.  A  D.  1568 
Isaiah  40  :  3-5 


.C-V'  Vv  -  •■* 


t 


j 


-I 


r. 


.<• 


; 


V 


1 


',  1 


i 


267 


Character  of  the  Bishops'  Bible 

torial  work,  and  the  printing  (in  1568),  Parker  made 
an  effort  to  secure  for  the  new  Bible  the  recognition 
of  the  Queen.  But  so  far  as  evidence  goes,  it  was 
not  granted.  Convocation,  however,  decided  (1571) 
that  “  every  archbishop  and  bishop  should  have  at  his 
house  a  copy  of  the  Holy  Bible  of  the  largest  volume 
as  lately  printed  at  London  .  .  .  and  that  it 

should  be  placed  in  the  hall  or  the  large  dining  room, 
that  it  might  be  useful  to  their  servants  or  to  strang¬ 
ers.”  Every  cathedral  was  to  have  a  copy,  and  so 
were  all  other  churches,  “  as  far  as  it  could  be  conve¬ 
niently  done.” 

217.  The  title-page  of  the  Bishops’  Bible  bore  the 
title,  “  The  Holie  Bible,  containing  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,”  and  a  portrait  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 
As  a  frontispiece  of  the  book  of  Joshua  there  was 
a  portrait  of  Lord  Leicester,  and  of  the  Psalms,  one 
of  Cecil,  Lord  Burleigh.  The  division  into  verses  fol¬ 
lowed  that  of  the  Geneva  Bible.  Then  the  book  was 
provided  with  almanacs,  calendars,  tables,  pictures, 
and  maps.  Besides  the  Preface  of  Archbishop  Parker, 
the  Bible  contained  that  of  the  martyr  Cranmer,  which 
was  found  in  the  Great  Bible. 

The  internal  character  of  the  work  is  about  what 
would  be  expected.  The  contents  were  of  unequal 
merit.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  readings  of  the 
Great  Bible  are  quite  faithfully  followed,  while  the 
Apocrypha  is  almost  identical  with  it,  though  the 
Great  Bible  was  based  largely  on  a  Latin  text.  The 
New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  exhibited  marks 


2  68  Geuevajiy  Bishops  y  and  Douai  Versions 

of  real  scholarship  in  its  revision.  In  the  second  edh 
tion  in  1572,  the  New  Testament  was  notably  revised 
and  improved,  while  the  Old  remained  as  it  had  been. 

But  the  authorization  of  the  bishops  was  enough 
to  displace  the  Great  Bible  at  once  from  public  use. 
For  its  last  edition  appears  to  have  been  printed  in 
1569,  only  one  year  after  the  publication  of  the  Bish¬ 
ops’  Bible.  This  new  Bible  was  far  from  satisfac¬ 
tory  to  the  increasingly  large  number  of  able  scholars. 
Its  ponderousness  and  its  ecclesiastical  sanction  were 
not  enough  to  popularize  it.  Its  illustrations  were 
such  as  to  make  it  an  object  of  reproach — the  second 
edition  being  called  the  “  Leda  ”  Bible,  from  its 
objectionable  picture  of  “Leda  and  the  Swan.”  It 
was  held  in  high  ecclesiastical  regard  for  about  forty 
years,  and  passed  through  twenty  editions,  six  in 
quarto,  one  in  octavo,  and  thirteen  in  folio — the  last 
bearing  the  date  of  1606. 

218.  Protestant  refugees  from  the  persecutions  of 
Queen  Mary  revised  and  produced  the  Geneva  Bible. 
On  the  other  hand,  upon  the  accession  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  some  of  the  Romanist  party,  now  forced  to 
the  background,  migrated  to  the  continent.  The 
popular  demand  for  the  English  Bible,  and  the  an¬ 
swer  to  this  demand  by  the  Protestant  revisions  now 
freely  circulated,  led  the  Romanists  to  see  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  providing  a  version  for  their  own  adherents. 
In  1568,  the  year  of  the  issuance  of  the  Bishops’  Bible, 
some  of  the  Romanist  refugees  to  the  continent  estab¬ 
lished  an  English  college  at  Douai,  in  Flanders.  This 


The  Rheims  and  Douai  Version  269 

city  was  the  seat  of  a  university  founded  by  Philip  II 
of  Spain  in  1562,  and  was  an  important  continental 
center  of  English  Roman  Catholicism.  The  founder  of 
this  English  college,  William  Allen,  was  an  Oxford 
man  and  a  canon  under  Queen  Mary.  He  projected 
the  plan  of  producing  an  English  Bible  for  English 
Roman  Catholics.  The  translation  of  the  work,  how¬ 
ever,  was  prosecuted  under  the  oversight  of  Gregory 
Martin,  another  Oxford  graduate.  During  the  prog¬ 
ress  of  the  work  political  upheavals  compelled  the 
removal  of  the  college  from  Douai  to  Rheims  in  1578. 
By  1582  the  entire  work  of  translation  had  been  com¬ 
pleted,  and  the  New  Testament  section  published. 
The  next  year  after  its  appearance  Fulke  printed  a 
sharp  rejoinder  to  Martin’s  controversial  marginal 
notes  in  the  Rheims  New  Testament.  In  1589  he  is¬ 
sued  in  parallel  columns  the  Rheims  New  Testament, 
and  that  of  the  2nd  edition  (1572)  of  the  Bishop’s 
Bible — a  deadly  parallel.  Fulke’s  work  had  the  merit 
at  least  of  popularizing  this  particular  version.  In 
1593  the  college,  being  compelled  to  leave  Rheims, 
returned  to  Douai.  Here  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  hitherto  unprinted  for  lack  of  funds,  was 
published  in  1609-10.  Hence  this  is  called  the  Douai 
Version.  The  New  Testament  was  reprinted  three  times 
between  its  first  appearance  in  1582  and  1750,  and  the 
Old  Testament  once — a  receding  demand  for  them. 

219.  The  Douai  version  (1609-T0)  carries  this  on 
its  title-page:  “The  Holie  Bible,  Faithfully  Translated 
into  English  out  of  the  authenticall  Latin.”  A  com- 


270  Genevan^  Bishops\  and  Douai  Versions 

paratively  long  preface  apologizes  to  the  reader  for 
the  production  and  publication  of  such  a  version,  as¬ 
signing  as  a  reason  the  prevalence  and  wide-spread 
use  of  various  heretical  and  false  versions.  To  coun¬ 
teract  these  menaces  to  the  church  of  Rome,  and  to 
vindicate  the  good  name  of  Roman  Catholic  scholar¬ 
ship,  this  particular  version,  well  fortified  with  con¬ 
troversial  notes,  was  issued. 

As  stated  on  the  title-page,  the  Douai  version  is  a 
translation  “  from  the  authenticall  Latin,”  the  Vul¬ 
gate,  because  “  it  is  the  same  which  St.  Augustine  so 
commendeth  ...”  and  was  declared  by  “  the 
Holy  Council  of  Trent  to  be  authentical  ...  ;” 

because  “  the  adversaries  themselves,  namely,  Beza, 
prefer  it  before  all  the  rest.”  These,  among  ten  rea¬ 
sons,  are  assigned  by  the  New  Testament  translators 
for  the  use  of  the  Vulgate  as  the  original,  or  basis,  of 
their  work.  No  acknowledgment  whatever  is  made  to 
the  various  English  versions  that  had  appeared, 
though  the  resemblance  to  the  Genevan  is  often  strik¬ 
ing.  Some  use  is  said  to  have  been  made  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  originals,  but  it  was  slight  and  the 
result  of  small  value. 

The  translation  itself  is  extremely  literal,  and  even 
carries  over  into  English  sentences  that  are  obscure 
in  the  Latin.  The  translators  say :  “  we  presume 
not  to  mollify  the  speeches  or  phrases,  but  religiously 
keep  them  word  for  word,  and  point  for  point,  for 
fear  of  missing  or  restraining  the  sense  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  our  fancy.”  The  adoption  of  such  a  policy 


• 

}-  “O 

• 

t") 

\ 

»—* 

ci 

G  r- 

C  % 

G 

u 

cx 

> 

O 

(-0 

eo 

o  ~ 

-C 

oo 

o 

W  ^ 

“G 

*-> 

c 

ri 

bO^) 

r— 

en 

C 

n 

*-i 

c 

r\ 

CJ 

r~; 

o 

<o 

»-u< 

<L> 

kM 

r  • 

G 

• 

> 

O 

«-* 

T3 

> 

"O 

*  •H 

> » 

<u 

u« 

<u 

G 

ra 

• 

<u 

1-“ 

C: 

bO 

f-' 

U  (/) 
(-;  «J 

o  O  r  o 

*-  -C  -G 

JJ  fcrf  2  *-* 
> 

>  .5  .b;  3 

x:  °  jr 
>  C  oo 

^  C  ^4_i  •  13 

•s  0.0  o 

fO-t  _C 

O  >'^'^’5 

""  o  c  _ 

>  -s  ^ 

>■  o  ^ 

w  *~~^ 


> 

u 

to 

ra 

^  V4_r 

a  o 

to 

ra 

u 

bC  > 

G  <u 

no 

c 

> 

C 

o 

B 

4-« 

r3 

_c 

^  £ 
-<u  tr 

< 

ca 

t-i  -O 

4- 

—  ^  .  gJ  «-> 

Kr-tl  JX  -O  W  . 
*^  rt  ^  O  <• 


*-•  .  'J  <^  QJ  .. 

"Tl  ^  £  I  r*^  ^ 

~  ^  <u  (u  ^  -z:  G 

-£  -c  -2  ^  < 

jS  g  -q  -o  ^  ®  — 


c< 

00 

m 


a 


c 

VO 


t/:  ro 
OJ  M 


V  *< 


a; 

-C 

Pi 

1) 

J= 


er\ 


VO 


«<»-» 


O  k.  vS 


X 

U 


'• '  ■ 


i  'yVf:  -• 


•  =  ;  .  i  .  -  ■  •  • 


...  .-..M 


>9 


•  i  \ 


'  ■  'A  i 


■4 


r>  ...  • 


.  ,v 


r“V-  ■- 

-i, 


Character  of  the  Douai  Bible  271 

carried  over  into  English  words  and  phrases  that  are 
stiff,  formal,  wooden  and  often  meaningless.  The 
Psalter  is  the  most  defective  part  of  their  Bible,  for 
its  translation  was  made  not  from  Jerome’s  Latin 
translation,  but  from  his  second  revision  of  the  Old 
Latin,  that  is  found  incorporated  in  the  Latin  Bible 
adopted  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Rhemish  New  Testament,  however,  through  its 
popularity  attained  through  Fulke’s  publication,  exer¬ 
cised  some  influence  in  the  preparation  of  the  Au¬ 
thorized  Version  of  1611. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION  OF  l6ll 

220.  The  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (1558-1603) 
was  replete  with  great  events.  In  the  religious  sphere 
we  have  (i)  the  appearance  (1560)  of  the  Geneva 
Bible  that  soon  attained  large  popularity  and  use ; 
(2)  the  publication  (1568)  of  the  Bishops’  Bible  that 
immediately  displaced  the  Great  Bible  as  the  ecclesi-^- 
astical  version  in  use  in  the  churches;  (3)  the  Rhem- 
ish  New  Testament  (1582)  as  the  product  of  the 
English  Catholic  college  at  Rheims,  Flanders,  and 
its  completion,  the  Douai  Old  Testament  (1609-10) 
at  Douai;  (4)  the  tolerance  enjoyed  by  the  reform 
party  in  England,  securing  for  them  practically  un¬ 
restricted  growth.  The  two  events  in  the  political 
sphere  that  contributed  to  the  success  and  liberties 
already  achieved  were  the  execution  of  Mary  Stuart 
(1587)  and  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the  Spanish 
Armada  in  1588.  In  the  literary  world  there  arose  a 
galaxy  of  scholars  and  writers  which  has  made  the 
period  unique  in  England’s  history,  and  given  the 
language  a  purity,  style,  and  beauty  that  has  never 
been  surpassed  by  any  subsequent  age.  Among  these 
worthies  may  be  mentioned  Shakespeare,  Spenser, 
Bacon,  Hooker,  Jonson,  and  Richard  Hakluyt.  The 
religious  and  intellectual  forces  set  to  work  greatly 
272 


273 


James  I  a7id  Hampton  Court 

stirred  up  and  molded  the  desires,  aspirations,  and 
endeavors  of  the  Englishmen  of  the  close  of  the  six¬ 
teenth  century.  Scholarship  had  achieved  a  high 
standard  of  excellence  and  was  not  satisfied  with  any¬ 
thing  small  or  less  than  the  best. 

221.  James  I  came  to  the  throne  in  1603.  His 
early  life  and  training  had  made  him  a  student  of  the 
Bible.  He  had  even  tried  his  hand  at  authorship, 
having  written  a  paraphrase  of  the  book  of  Revela¬ 
tion,  and  translated  some  of  the  Psalms.  The  be¬ 
ginnings  of  the  movement  that  ended  in  the  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  so-called  “Authorized  Version”  were 
apparently  unpremeditated.  King  James  had  sum¬ 
moned  a  Conference  to  meet  at  Hampton  Court  in 
January,  1604,  to  consider  complaints  by  the  Puritans. 
The  item  of  importance  for  our  consideration  is  found 
in  the  Preface  of  the  Authorized  Version: 

“The  very  historical  truth  is  that  upon  the  importunate 
petitions  of  the  Puritans,  at  his  Majesty’s  coming  to  this 
crown,  the  conference  at  Hampton  Court  having  been  ap¬ 
pointed  for  hearing  their  complaints :  when  by  force  of  rea¬ 
son  they  were  put  from  all  other  grounds,  they  had  re¬ 
course  at  the  last  to  this  shift,  that  they  could  not  with 
good  conscience  subscribe  to  the  Communion  [Prayer-] 
book,  since  it  maintained  the  Bible  as  it  was  there  trans¬ 
lated  [in  the  Great  Bible],  which  was,  as  they  said,  a  most 
corrupted  translation.  And  although  this  was  judged  to 
be  but  a  very  poor  and  empty  shift,  yet  even  hereupon  did 
his  Majesty  begin  to  bethink  himself  of  the  good  that 
might  ensue  by  a  new  translation,  and  presently  after 
gave  order  for  this  translation  which  is  now  presented 
unto  thee.” 


2  74  Authorized  Version  of  i6ii 

The  one  man  who  presented  this  question  to  the 
Conference  was  Dr.  Reynolds,  president  of  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Oxford.  His  examples  of  “  a  most 
corrupted  translation  ”  were  cited  from  the  Great 
Bible  and  the  Bishops’  Bible,  for  from  the  translation 
of  the  former  of  these  the  Prayer-Book  had  been 
constructed. 

So  far  as  is  known  the  Conference  adjourned  with¬ 
out  taking  any  definite  steps  towards  meeting  the 
issue,  of  the  Puritans.  But  the  strong  words  of  the 
Oxford  president  had  been  sown  in  fruitful  soil. 

222.  The  charge  of  the  Puritans  that  mistransla¬ 
tions  of  the  Scriptures  were  found  in  the  Prayer-Book 
was  the  first  definite  step  towards  a  revision.  James  I 
was  thoroughly  in  accord  with  the  idea  of  a  new 
revision  of  the  Bible,  for  he  himself  is  cited  concern¬ 
ing  the  best  translation  of  that  day,  the  Genevan,  by 
Bancroft,  in  these  words,  “  but  the  worst  of  all  [the 
translations]  his  Majesty  thought  the  Geneva  to  be.” 
James  entered  heartily  into  the  preparation  and  exe¬ 
cution  of  a  plan  to  provide  a  uniform  translation  “  by 
the  best  learned  in  both  the  Universities ;  after  them 
to  be  reviewed  by  the  bishops  and  the  chief  learned 
of  the  church ;  ”  to  be  ratified  by  the  Privy  Council, 
and  by  royal  authority. 

James  seemed  to  regard  this  as  the  opportunity  of 
his  life  to  do  a  popular  and  permanent  piece  of  work 
on  the  Bible.  He  entered  into  the  plan  with  energy, 
enthusiasm,  and  a  determination  to  carry  it  through 
to  a  successful  issue.  His  own  Bible-trained  spirit 


Organization  of  Revisers  275 

and  his  theological  turn  of  mind  made  the  whole  en¬ 
terprise  congenial  to  him.  The  extemporized  sug¬ 
gestion  of  Dr.  Reynolds  soon  sprang  forth  into  full 
fruition.  It  is  not  known  with  whom  James  made 
all  the  plans  and  arranged  all  the  details.  But  about 
six  months  later,  not  only  the  general  plan  of  pro¬ 
cedure,  but  the  list  of  scholars  who  were  to  do  the 
work,  had  been  fully  prepared.  By  July  22,  1604, 
James  wrote  to  Bancroft  that  he  had  “  appointed  cer¬ 
tain  learned  men  to  the  number  of  four  and  fifty  for 
the  translating  of  the  Bible.”  The  only  prerequisite 
for  the  position  of  translator  seems  to  have  been 
proved  efficiency  as  biblical  scholars.  The  list  in¬ 
cluded  Anglican  churchmen,  Puritans,  and  laymen. 
Though  James’  letter  mentions  fifty-four,  the  list  that 
has  been  preserved  contains  only  forty-seven.  The 
discrepancy  between  the  original  number  and  the 
actual  workers  is  supposed  to  be  accounted  for  by 
resignations  and  deaths  between  the  time  of  appoint¬ 
ment  and  the  time  when  the  real  work  began. 

223.  The  revisers  were  organized  into  six  groups, — 
two  at  Westminster,  two  at  Oxford,  and  two  at  Cam¬ 
bridge.  Each  of  the  six  groups  worked  on  a  speci¬ 
fied  portion  of  Scripture,  separately  at  first.  The 
Westminster  group  revised  Genesis  to  2  Kings  in¬ 
clusive,  and  Romans  to  Jude  inclusive ;  the  Oxford 
group  took  Isaiah  to  Malachi  inclusive,  and  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  the  Acts,  and  the  Apocalypse ;  the  Cambridge 
group  revised  i  Chronicles  to  Ecclesiastes  inclusive, 
and  the  Apocrypha. 


276  The  Authorized  Version  of  16 ii 

The  competency  of  the  revisers  was  undoubted. 
Nevertheless,  such  an  array  of  scholarship  could  not 
do  the  work  harmoniously  without  stringent  rules. 
To  guide  them  fifteen  specific  rules  were  provided  by 


things  required  were  that  (i)  the  Bishops’  Bible 
should  “  be  followed,  and  as  little  altered  as  the  truth 
of  the  original  will  permit;  ”  (2)  the  old  ecclesiastical 
words  should  be  retained;  (3)  there  were  to  be  no 
marginal  notes  at  all,  except  such  as  should  be  needed 
for  the  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  words ; 
(4)  whenever  Tyndale’s,  Matthew’s,  Coverdale’s, 
Whitchurch’s  [The  Great  Bible,  here  named  after  one 


The  Work  Completed  277 

of  its  printers]  or  the  Geneva  translation,  agreed  bet¬ 
ter  with  the  original  text  than  the  Bishops’  Bible,  it 
was  to  be  used.  It  was  provided,  too,  that  a  compar¬ 
ison  of  translations  of  each  individual  translator  with 
every  other  one  in  each  company  should  be  made,  and 
when  any  book  was  completed  by  any  group  it  was 
sent  to  all  the  other  groups  for  review  and  sugges¬ 
tion.  Translators,  too,  were  authorized  to  call  on 
any  other  scholars  outside  of  the  regular  list,  if  they 
deemed  it  wise  so  to  do.  Thus  every  man  of  the 
entire  company  of  forty-seven  passed  upon  the  work 
of  every  other  man  in  the  company. 

Very  little  is  known  as  to  the  strictness  with  which 
the  fifteen  specifications  were  followed.  It  seems 
evident  that  there  must  have  been  practical  harmony 
in  their  methods  of  procedure,  for  the  work  sped  on 
at  a  commendable  rate  until  completed. 

224.  The  group  work  having  been  finished,  two 
members  of  each  of  the  three  companies  were  chosen 
to  pass  upon  the  final  revision  of  the  work  for  the 
press  in  London.  It  is  said  that  a  copy  of  the  whole 
Bible  was  sent  to  London  by  each  of  the  three  com¬ 
panies.  The  six  final  revisers  thus  chosen  put  the  fin¬ 
ishing  touches,  the  harmonistic  elements,  upon  the 
work  submitted  by  the  three  companies,  and  made 
the  final  preparations  for  the  press. 

The  entire  time  for  carrying  out  the  great  enter¬ 
prise  is  sometimes  divided  into  two  periods,  (i)  the 
first  three  years  (1604-07)  were  occupied  in  perfect¬ 
ing  the  preliminary  arrangements,  and,  on  the  part  of 


278  The  Authorized  Version  of  16 ii 

some  of  the  translators,  in  carefully  working  over  in 
private  study  the  material  soon  to  be  handled  by  the 
entire  body  of  revisers ;  (2)  the  next  two  to  three 
years  were  consumed  in  the  individual  and  co-opera¬ 
tive  labor  of  the  six  groups  of  revisers,  during  which 
the  revision  work  was  finished.  Then  the  following 
nine  months  were  occupied  upon  the  final  revision  in 
London.  At  the  conclusion  of  this  work  the  revised 
version  appeared  from  the  press  of  R.  Barker  in  1611. 
It  was  a  folio  volume  in  black-letter  type,  without  notes. 

225.  The  revision  carried  on  its  title-page,  “newly 
translated  out  of  the  original  tongues ;  and  with  for¬ 
mer  translations  diligently  compared  and  revised  by 
his  Majesty’s  special  command.”  This  “translation,” 
as  has  been  already  mentioned,  was  really  a  revision 
based  on  the  Bishops’  Bible,  with  a  free  use  by  the 
revisers  of  the  Genevan,  the  Rheims  New  Testament, 
and  the  material  of  Tremellius  (1579),  Beza  (1556, 
1565  and  1598),  and  other  Latin  versions.  When  we 
consider  that  the  Bishops’  Bible  was  based  on  the 
Great  Bible,  and  the  Great  Bible  was  a  slightly  revised 
edition  of  Tyndale’s  work,  we  begin  to  appreciate  the 
part  that  Tyndale’s  work  occupies  in  this  new  version 
of  1611.  There  was  no  standard  or  “received”  He¬ 
brew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  hence  the  revisers 
were  obliged  to  use  the  four  current  Hebrew  Bibles 
and  the  Complutensian  and  Antwerp  Polyglots ;  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament  they  had  Beza’s  improvements 
on  Erasmus  and  on  Stephanus.  The  Old  Testament 
far  surpassed  any  English  translation  in  its  faithful 


iBO  3  tl)e 

fUmbe  openeb  one  of 
(eates,  anb  ^  l)eatb  as  it 
tbete  tl)enoi!e  of  ttianbet, 
one  of  t^e  fouce  beaOes, 
(iaping,  ComeanbCte. 

z  :snb9faib,a»bbef)oU),8n)l)tte 
fiotft,  anb  bee  that  Cate  mi  bab  a 
boibe ,  anb  a  croBme  ibas  spnen  bnto 
bim,anb  bet  tbent  fiw^tb  conqneting, 
anbtoconqneee. 

3  ;^btbbenbeebabopenebtbefe^ 
conb  feale,‘|l  beacb  ^(econb  beaQCip, 
Come  anb  Ke. 

4  :Snb  there  tbent  out  another 
botfe  that  mas  reb :  anb  polber  mas 
giuento  bmi  that  fatetbereon  totabe 
prate  from  tbe  eartb ,  anb  that  tbep 
(boufb  bni  one  another :  anb  there  mas 
gmen  bnto  him  a  great  fraom. 

5  ;:Snb  tbben  bee  bab  openeb  the 
tbirt^eaie,  ^  bearb  the  tbtrb  beaS  lap, 
Comeanbfte.  ^2(nb^  blbeib.anbloe, 
a  biatbeboife  :anb  bee  that  fate  on  him 
bab  apaire  ofbaiances  in  bis  banb. 


King  James’,  or  the  Authorized  Version.  A.D.  i6ti 
Revelation  6  :  1-5 


Popularity  of  Version  of  i6ii  279 

representation  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  did  it  in  a 
simplicity  of  language  admirably  representative  of  the 
Elizabethan  age.  The  New  Testament  is  so  chaste 
and  expressive  in  language  and  form  that  it  is  even 
said  to  surpass  the  original  Greek  as  a  piece  of  litera¬ 
ture. 

226.  Another  significant  statement  appeared  on 
the  title-page  of  the  version  attributed  to  the  activity 
of  King  James,  hence  often  called  “  King  James’  Ver¬ 
sion,”  or  the  ‘‘  King’s  Bible.”  This  is,  “  appointed  to 
be  read  in  the  churches.”  Although  the  promotion 
and  preparation  of  this  Bible  was  under  a  direct  order 
of  the  King  and  his  chief  advisers,  there  is  no  record 
of  any  order,  act,  or  decree,  authorizing  or  sanctioning 
its  use  as  implied  in  the  above  statement.  Neither 
parliament,  convocation,  privy  council,  nor  king,  is 
known  to  have  laid  down  any  law  that  would  entitle 
this  version  to  be  named  what,  for  long  centuries,  it 
has  been  called,  “the  Authorized  Version.” 

Notwithstanding  its  royal  and  scholarly  paternity, 
its  birth  occurred  without  any  blast  of  trumpets,  any 
royal  edict  or  public  proclamation.  It  seems  that  the 
mere  fact  of  its  almost  national  character  was  re¬ 
garded  as  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  its  rapid  adoption 
and  use  in  the  churches  and  in  private  reading.  At 
any  rate,  the  King’s  name,  and  the  eminence  of  the 
many  great  scholars  who  brought  about  its  produc¬ 
tion,  gave  it  an  immediate  hearing.  It  met  opposi¬ 
tion,  of  course,  as  does  any  new  revision,  even  in  these 
days.  It  soon  outran  in  popularity  the  Bishops’  Bible, 


2  8o  The  Authorized  Version  of  i6ii 

that  had  not  been  reprinted  since  1606.  With  the 
Genevan  Version  it  waged  a  running  fight  for  a  full 
half-century.  But  character  and  merit  won  the  con¬ 
test,  and  the  “  Authorized  Version  ”  completely  took 
the  field. 

227.  The  first  edition  of  the  '‘Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion  ”  appeared  in  1611.  In  1614  another  edition  was 
printed  which  contained  more  than  400  variations  from 
the  first.  But  the  sharp  criticisms  that  were  hurled 
at  the  new  version,  largely  by  Hugh  Broughton,  whose 
irascible  disposition  had  deprived  him  of  a  place,  as 
his  scholarship  deserved,  on  the  translation  commit¬ 
tee,  forced  a  revision  in  1629.  The  so-called  final  re¬ 
vision  of  the  Authorized  Version  was  printed  in  1638. 
Within  less  than  fifty  years  after  the  appearance  of 
King  James’  Version,  agitation  was  begun  for  a  new 
revision  of  the  Bible.  In  1653  the  Long  Parliament 
submitted  a  bill  calling  for  such  revision.  The  rea¬ 
sons  that  lay  back  of  the  bill  were  in  part  errors, 
mainly  printers’,  and  some  in  translation,  and  also  the 
so-called  prelatical  language  of  the  version.  The  mat¬ 
ter  went  so  far  as  to  be  put  into  the  hands  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  appointed  especially  to  take  charge  of  the 
scheme.  Some  preliminary  work  was  begun,  but  the 
dissolution  of  Parliament  put  an  end  to  the  proposed 
concerted  action.  Some  of  the  most  noted  men  of 
the  century  were  on  the  committee  which  was  dis¬ 
solved.  Among  these  may  be  named  Walton,  bishop 
of  Chester,  who,  with  the  active  support  of  Oliver 
Cromwell,  edited  the  colossal  Polyglot  Bible,  and  also 


Private  Revisions 


281 


through  his  arduous  textual  studies,  pointed  out  the 
variations  existent  between  manuscripts,  particularly 
of  the  New  Testament.  Cudworth,  the  eminent  theo¬ 
logian  and  philosopher,  was  another  whose  work  has 
given  him  a  permanent  place  in  history. 

228.  The  King  James  Version  was  winning  the 
day.  Its  rivals  had  fallen  out  one  by  one,  and  the 
popular  agitation  for  revision  had  dwindled  into  in¬ 
significant  proportions.  Private  attempts  either  at  bet¬ 
terment  or  radical  revision  were  not  infrequent,  but 
they  remained  almost  private,  and  rarely  exercised  any 
large  influence.  Explanatory  notes  were  called  for, 
and  editions  like  that  of  1649  began  to  appear,  with 
more  or  less  of  this  additional  matter.  Bishop  Lloyd’s 
Bible  in  1701  was  the  first  to  incorporate  in  it  the 
biblical  chronology  that  had  been  worked  out  by  Arch¬ 
bishop  Ussher  (who  died  1656).  This  system,  which 
fixed  the  creation  at  4004  B.  C.,  has  been  generally 
followed  by  biblical  scholars  until  recent  times,  when 
extensive  discoveries  of  chronological  material  in  the 
Orient  have  shown  conclusively  that  it  is 
greatly  in  error  in  all  of  its  earlier  calcula¬ 
tions,  and  in  most  of  its  later  dates  before  the 
fall  of  Samaria  (722  B.  C.).  In  1762  the  Cambridge 
Bible,  by  Dr.  Paris,  introduced  383  marginal  notes  and 
other  changes;  and  in  1769  Dr.  Blayney  introduced 
into  the  Oxford  Bible  76  changes,  including  many  on 
weights,  measures  and  coins.  These  were  practically 
private  changes  made  to  elucidate  the  text  as  it  had 
been  preserved  from  its  final  revision.  As  late  as 


282  The  Authorized  Version  of  16 ii 

1873  the  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  gave  a  list  of 
variations  from  the  text  of  the  King  James  Version 
as  it  first  appeared  in  1611,  that  covered  sixteen 
closely  printed  pages.  The  Oxford  Parallel  Bible  of 
1885  made  a  selection  from  these  variants  and  put 
them  in  the  margin. 

229.  For  almost  three  centuries  the  Authorized,  or 
King  James,  Version  has  been  the  Bible  of  the  English- 
speaking  world.  Its  simple,  majestic  Anglo-Saxon 
tongue,  its  clear,  sparkling  style,  its  directness  and 
force  of  utterance,  have  made  it  the  model  in  lan¬ 
guage,  style,  and  dignity  of  some  of  the  choicest  writ¬ 
ers  of  the  last  two  centuries.  Added  to  the  above 
characteristics,  its  reverential  and  spiritual  tone  and 
attitude  have  made  it  the  idol  of  the  Christian  church, 
for  its  own  words  have  been  regarded  as  authoritative 
and  binding.  It  has  endeared  itself  to  the  hearts  and 
lives  of  millions  of  Christians  and  has  molded  the 
characters  of  the  leaders  in  every  walk  of  life  in  the 
greatest  nation  of  the  world.  During  all  these  cen¬ 
turies  King  James’  Version  has  become  a  vital  part 
of  the  English-speaking  world,  socially,  morally,  re¬ 
ligiously,  and  politically.  Launched  with  the  endorse¬ 
ment  of  the  regal  and  scholarly  authority  of  the  sev¬ 
enteenth  century,  its  conquest  and  rule  have  been 
supreme.  No  version  of  private  origin,  even  in  the 
face  of  advances  in  scholarship,  could  compete  with 
it.  Only  when  such  another  organization  as  pro¬ 
duced  it  came  to  the  field  was  it  obliged  to  yield  the 
day — to  the  Revised  Version. 


CHAPTER  XXV 


THE  REVISED  VERSION 

230.  The  Authorized  Version  held  undisputed 
sway  in  the  English-speaking  world  for  more  than 
two  centuries.  There  were  only  occasional  efforts 
now  and  then  to  improve  that  version,  and  they  were 
purely  personal  and  unauthorized.  In  fact,  after  the 
abortive  effort  of  the  Long  Parliament  to  secure  a 
new  translation,  the  main  ecclesiastical  and  national 
interests  pursued  other  lines  of  action.  The  early  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century  was  submerged  religiously 
in  controversies  that  dealt  with  theological  questions 
more  from  a  dogmatic  and  philosophical  point  of  view 
than  from  that  of  the  Scriptures.  The  second  half  of 
that  century  was  largely  occupied  by  the  English  in 
political  and  economic  questions.  The  ecclesiastical  life 
of  the  nation  in  this  century  was  at  a  low  ebb,  awaiting 
some  thunderbolt  of  discovery  or  invention  to  arouse 
it  to  new  energy  and  action.  The  beginnings  of  the 
nineteenth  century  saw  new  movements  in  every  line 
of  activity.  Discovery,  invention,  scholarship,  poli¬ 
tics,  religion — all  aroused  to  new  life  as  the  century 
advanced,  promising  not  only  larger  action,  but  a 
wider  horizon  for  the  future. 

231.  Biblical  scholarship,  though  confined  to  com¬ 
paratively  a  few  men,  had  made  some  decided  prog- 

283 


284 


The  Revised  Version 


ress,  particularly  on  the  textual  and  philological  side 
during  the  preceding  century.  The  most  prominent 
workers  in  this  line  were  Kennicott,  de  Rossi,  and 
Davidson,  who  carefully  collated  critical  material  of 
great  value.  New  international  relations,  new  incen¬ 
tives  to  travel  and  investigate,  also  took  possession  of 
biblical  students.  In  1844  Tischendorf’s  discovery  of 
the  Sinaitic  manuscript  (Codex  Sinaiticus),  Tre- 
gelles’  publication  of  a  critical  text  of  Revelation  based 
on  many  manuscripts  in  the  principal  libraries  of  Eu¬ 
rope;  and  in  1857  and  thereafter,  his  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament  opened  the  eyes  of  scholars  to  the  immense 
possibilities  of  improvements  in  translations  of  the 
Bible.  The  number  of  biblical  scholars  was  increas¬ 
ing,  and  the  textual  material  which  could  be  used  in 
Bible  study,  particularly  of  the  New  Testament,  was 
multiplying  as  rapidly  as  old  manuscripts  were  dug 
out  of  the  old  libraries  of  Europe  and  the  monasteries 
of  the  East.  These  “  finds  ”  revealed  some  of  the 
most  glaring  defects  of  the  Authorized  Version  and 
initiated  efforts  to  produce  new  revisions  or  transla¬ 
tions  of  parts  or  of  the  whole  Bible.  In  1857  five 
English  clergymen  published  translations  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  of  Paul’s  Epistles.  Of  these 
translators.  Dean  Alford  and  Bishop  Ellicott  were 
afterwards  chosen  to  be  members  of  the  Committee 
of  Revisers.  Four  English  scholars,  Drs.  Gotch, 
Davies,  Jacob  and  S.  G.  Green,  prepared  a  Revised 
English  Bible.  G.  R.  Noyes,  of  Harvard  University, 
published  a  translation  in  1869,  with  some  notes  by 


Revision  Committee  Formed  285 

Ezra  Abbot  in  1870.  The  American  Bible  Union, 
too,  gathered  together  a  choice  biblical  exegetical 
library  at  large  expense,  and  prosecuted  a  new  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Bible.  The  New  Testament  was  translated 
and  published  in  full.  Parts  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  published  with  comiments  by  T.  J.  Conant,  a 
leader  in  American  biblical  scholarship.  All  these 
efforts  on  both  sides  of  the  sea  were  indicators  of 
the  drift  of  scholarly  opinion  and  movement  in  the 
last  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  large  amount 
of  new  textual  material,  particularly  of  the  New 
Testament,  brought  to  light  by  the  investigations  of 
scholars,  pushed  the  sentiment  for  a  new  revision  of 
the  Bible  to  the  front. 

232.  The  first  public  move  towards  a  new  revision 
was  made  February  10,  1870,  in  the  Upper  House  of 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbury.  Bishop  Wilberforce 
(of  Winchester)  presented  a  resolution  that  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  both  Houses  be  appointed  to  report  on  the 
desirableness,  on  the  basis  of  certain  principles  named 
in  the  document,  of  a  revision  of  the  Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion  of  the  New  Testament.  By  an  amendment  the 
Old  Testament  was  included.  This  important  reso¬ 
lution  was  seconded  by  Bishop  Ellicott  (of  Gloucester 
and  Bristol),  and  it  was  adopted  by  the  body.  Two 
such  names  at  the  head  of  such  a  proposal  were  sure 
to  give  it  a  strong  impetus.  The  committee  provided 
for  in  the  resolution  was  appointed  to  report  in  the 
following  May.  After  due  consideration  this  com¬ 
mittee  almost  unanimously  recommended,  and  both 


286 


The  Revised  Version 


Houses  of  Convocation  adopted,  a  resolution  that  a 
revision  should  be  undertaken.  It  also  provided  that 
a  body  of  its  own  members  should  be  nominated  to 
undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who  should  “  be  at 
liberty  to  invite  the  co-operation  of  any,  eminent  for 
scholarship,  to  whatever  nation  or  religious  body  they 
may  belong.”  The  Church  of  England  took  the  lead 
in  the  management  of  the  movement,  and  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  sixteen  men  was  appointed  to  carry 
out  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  resolution.  This 
committee  decided  to  invite  about  forty  biblical  schol¬ 
ars  to  become  members  of  the  Revision  Committee. 
With  Episcopalians  in  the  lead,  the  committee  was 
made  up  of  members  of  nearly  all  evangelical  bodies, 
including  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  Methodists, 
Presbyterians  and  Unitarians ;  but  no  Roman  Catho¬ 
lics  accepted.  The  full  number  of  this  committee 
was  fifty-four,  the  same  as  that  originally  named  on 
King  James’  Revision  Committee. 

233.  According  to  the  Preface  of  the  Revised 
Version,  some  of  the  general  principles  which  were 
agreed  to  on  May  25,  1870,  by  the  Revision  Commit¬ 
tee  of  Convocation  for  their  guidance  were:  “(i)  To 
introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  into  the  Text 
of  the  Authorized  Version  consistently  with  faithful¬ 
ness;  (2)  to  limit  as  far  as  possible,  the  expression  of 
such  alterations  to  the  language  of  the  Authorized  and 
earlier  English  Versions  .  .  .  .;  (4)  that  the  Text 
to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the  evidence  is  decided¬ 
ly  preponderating ;  and  that  when  the  text  so  adopted 


BC  HebIrew 

500  - - 1 - 


An  American  Revision  Committee  287 

differs  from  that  from  which  the  Authorized  Version 
was  made,  the  alteration  be  indicated  in  the  margin ; 
(7)  to  revise  the  headings  of  chapters  and  pages,  par¬ 
agraphs,  italics,  and  punctuation.”  A  discussion  of  the 
method  of  carrying  out  these  instructions  follows  like¬ 
wise  in  the  same  Preface. 

The  general  committee  was  organized  into  two  Com¬ 
panies,  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament, 
of  twenty-seven  members  each.  The  New  Testament 
Company  was  formally  organized  and  began  work 
in  the  famous  Jerusalem  Chamber  of  Westminster 
Deanery,  London,  June  22,  1870,  and  on  the  30th 
the  Old  Testament  Company  began  its  long  and 
arduous  toil.  Each  Company  was  required  to  work 
through  its  portion  of  the  Bible  twice.  These  Com¬ 
panies  met  together  in  sessions  at  stated  intervals, 
and  these  sessions  were  for  the  most  part  of  ten  days 
each — and  they  generally  sat  six  hours  a  day.  On 
the  first  revision  the  readings  to  be  retained  were 
settled  by  a  majority  vote,  but  on  the  second  revise 
it  required  a  two-thirds  vote  of  those  present  to  fix 
the  new  text. 

234.  In  1870  Dr.  Angus  visited  America,  and,  at 
the  request  of  Bishop  Ellicott,  held  a  conference  with 
some  American  scholars  on  the  possibility  of  co-oper¬ 
ation  with  the  British  Revision  Committee.  A  plan 
of  such  co-operation  was  framed,  and  a  list  of  Amer¬ 
ican  biblical  scholars  representative  of  the  leading  re¬ 
ligious  bodies  and  denominations  of  the  country  was 
drawn  up.  The  British  Revision  Committee  approved 


288 


The  Revised  Version 


the  plan  and  list  of  names.  Accordingly  a  body  of 
thirty  men  was  organized  December  7,  1871,  which 
first  began  active  service  October  4,  1872,  as  Old  and 
New  Testament  Companies,  after  the  pattern  of  the 
British  organizations.  These  two  American  Com¬ 
panies  after  beginning  their  service,  met  for  com¬ 
mittee  work  one  session  every  month,  except  July  and 
August,  in  the  Bible  House  in  New  York.  Of  the 
New  Testament  Company,  ex-President  Woolsey  of 
New  Haven  was  chairman,  and  Professor  William 
Henry  Green,  of  Princeton,  occupied  the  same  posi¬ 
tion  for  the  Old  Testament  Company.  The  details 
of  the  plan  of  co-operation  with  the  British  Revision 
Committee  were  not  easily  arranged  or  adjusted. 
It  was  not  until  1875  ^  mutually  agreeable 

and  workable  scheme  was  concluded.  Dr.  Schaif’s 
statement  of  the  substance  of  the  agreement 
is  sufficiently  clear  (Companion  to  Greek  Testament 
and  Revised  Version,  pp.  400-1)  :  “The  English  Re¬ 
visers  promise  to  send  confidentially  their  Revision 
in  its  various  stages  to  the  American  Revisers,  to  take 
all  the  American  suggestions  into  special  considera¬ 
tion  before  the  conclusion  of  their  labors,  to  furnish 
them  before  publication  with  copies  of  the  Revision 
in  its  final  form,  and  to  allow  them  to  present,  in  an 
Appendix  to  the  Revised  Scriptures,  all  the  remain¬ 
ing  differences  of  reading  and  rendering  of  import¬ 
ance,  which  the  English  Committee  should  decline  to 
adopt ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  American  Revis¬ 
ers  pledge  themselves  to  give  their  moral  Support  to 


Completion  of  the  New  Testame^it  289 

the  authorized  editions  of  the  University  Presses,  with 
a  view  to  their  freest  circulation  within  the  United 
States,  and  not  to  issue  an  edition  of  their  own,  for 
a  term  of  fourteen  years.” 

235.  The  New  Testament  Companies  were  natur¬ 
ally  the  first  to  complete  their  task.  The  whole  time 
devoted  to  the  work  by  the  British  Company  was  ten 
and  one-half  years.  The  first  revision  was  completed 
at  the  end  of  six  years.  The  second  by  the  end  of 
two  and  one-half  more.  The  remainder  of  the  time 
was  occupied  in  the  consideration  of  the  suggestions 
from  America  on  the  second  revision,  and  of  many 
details,  and  of  special  questions  that  had  arisen.  As 
a  rule  the  British  Company  held  a  session  of  four 
days  every  month,  except  August  and  September,  in 
each  year  from  June,  1870.  The  average  attendance 
of  members  of  the  Revision  Committee  for  the  whole 
time  was  sixteen  each  day,  out  of  the  original  of 
twenty-seven ;  but  the  actual  number  of  the  Company 
was  twenty-four — the  changes  occurring  either  from 
death  or  resignations  having  lowered  the  average. 

Thus  after  about  400  days  of  sittings  on  their  work 
the  British  New  Testament  Company  affixed  their 
names  to  the  Preface  to  their  version,  November  ii, 
1880.  On  May  17,  1881,  Bishop  Ellicott,  one  of  the 
two  original  movers  of  the  resolution  in  1870,  to 
undertake  the  work  of  revision,  laid  the  first  copy  of 
the  Revised  New  Testament  before  the  Convocation 
of  Canterbury,  and  then  gave  in  a  brief  address  an  ac¬ 
count  of  the  production  of  the  volume.  On  that  Tues- 


290 


The  Revised  Version 


day,  May  17,  the  Revised  New  Testament  was  pub¬ 
lished  and  put  on  sale  in  England,  and  on  Friday,  May 
20,  in  the  United  States. 

236.  The  reception  accorded  this  work  has  been 
unprecedented  in  the  history  of  the  Bible.  One  mil¬ 
lion  copies  were  ordered  in  advance  from  the  Oxford 
University  Press,  and  nearly  as  many  from  that  of 
Cambridge.  Dr.  Schaff  reports  that  a  telegram  from 
London,  May  21,  1881,  reported  the  sale  of  two  mil¬ 
lion  copies  of  the  Revised  New  Testament  in  that  one 
city.  The  pressure  for  copies  in  New  York  and  Phila¬ 
delphia  began  before  daybreak  of  May  20.  The  agent 
of  the  Clarendon  Press  in  New  York  alone  sold  365,- 
000  before  the  end  of  the  year,  largely,  however,  dur¬ 
ing  the  first  few  days.  Other  agents  in  Philadelphia 
sold  about  110,000  copies.  Within  a  few  days  after 
its  appearance  more  than  a  score  of  reprints  of  dif¥er- 
ent  kinds  were  thrown  on  the  market.  Two  firms 
sold  during  the  summer  of  1881  about  165,000.  It  is 
estimated  that  almost  three  million  copies  of  the  Re¬ 
vised  New  Testament  were  sold  in  England  and 
America  in  all  editions  within  less  than  one  year  after 
its  publication.  In  addition  to  these  recorded  sales 
there  were  various  periodicals  and  papers  that  did 
large  service,  either  by  the  publication  of  a  part  or  the 
whole  of  the  new  volume.  The  Chicago  Tribune  and 
the  Chicago  Times  published  the  book  entire  in  their 
issues  of  May  22,  1881.  The  Gospels,  Acts,  and 
Romans,  containing  about  118,000  words,  were  tele¬ 
graphed  from  New  York,  and  the  remainder  of  the 


CompletioJi  of  Old  Testament  291 

book  was  set  up  from  copies  received  in  Chicago  on 
the  evening  of  May  21. 

Thus  the  Revised  New  Testament  sprang  at  once 
into  a  full-fledged  popularity,  and  was  widely  and, 
for  a  time,  eagerly  read  by  the  religious  and  literary 
elements  of  the  English-speaking  world. 

237.  The  work  of  revising  the  Old  Testament  was 
greater  and  more  extensive  in  time.  It  was  not  con¬ 
cluded  until  1884,  fourteen  years  after  the  beginning 
of  the  task.  This  space  of  time  wrought  many 
changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  British  Old  Testament 
Company.  Only  fifteen  of  the  original  twenty-seven 
lived  to  see  the  completion  of  their  work ;  ten  had 
died  and  two  had  resigned ;  their  places  being  filled 
by  others  until  1875,  after  which  no  one  was  added 
to  the  Company.  The  Revision  was  completed  in 
eighty-five  sessions,  ending  June  20,  1884;  and  it 
occupied  792  days,  or  more  than  two  and  one-half 
years  of  working  days.  The  greater  part  of  the  ses¬ 
sions  were  for  ten  days  each,  and  each  day  the  Com¬ 
pany  generally  sat  six  hours. 

The  British  Company  had  gone  twice  through 
the  Pentateuch  before  co-operation  with  the  American 
Company  had  been  arranged.  The  first  revision  of 
the  British  Company  was  submitted  to  the  American, 
and  in  every  case  except  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  the 
British  had  the  benefit  of  their  criticisms  and  sugges¬ 
tions  before  they  took  up  their  second  revision.  The 
second  revision  was  also  submitted  to  the  Americans 
and  their  latest  thoughts  were  in  the  hands  of  the 


292 


The  Revised  Version 


British  Company  at  their  final  review.  As  in  the  case 
of  the  New  Testament,  the  Revised  Old  Testament 
carries  an  Appendix  that  contains  many  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  preferences  which  were  not  adopted  by  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Company.  The  Preface  of  the  completed  Old 
Testament  was  signed  by  the  British  Old  Testament 
Company  in  Jerusalem  Chamber,  July  10,  1884;  ^ind 
the  entire  Revised  Version  appeared  bound  in  one 
volume.  May  19,  1885.  Its  reception  was  general, 
cordial,  and  thoughtful.  There  was  no  such  phe¬ 
nomenal  and  popular  demand  for  the  entire  Revised 
Bible  as  there  had  been  just  four  years  before  for  the 
Revised  New  Testament.  But  there  was  a  healthy 
and  encouraging  call  for  the  product  of  such  long 
years  of  toil  on  the  part  of  such  an  eminent  body  of 
biblical  scholars. 

238.  The  real  bases  of  the  Revised  Version  were 
the  original  texts  used  by  the  revisers,  (i)  The  Old 
Testament  text  was  the  Massoretic  Hebrew,  substan¬ 
tially  the  same  as  that  used  by  the  Company  that  pro¬ 
duced  the  Authorized  Version.  The  additional  ma¬ 
terial  at  the  command  of  the  Revisers  was  due  to  the 
collation  of  the  variant  readings  of  Hebrew  manu¬ 
scripts  and  of  such  early  versions  as  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Vulgate.  It  should  be  no  surprise,  then,  that 
there  are  so  few  striking  changes  between  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  Authorized  and  that  of  the  Revised 
Versions.  (2)  The  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  used  by  the  Revisers  presents  the  greatest  im¬ 
provements  over  that  used  by  the  revisers  of  King 


Improvements  in  Translation  293 

James.  Since  1611  all  the  great  New  Testament 
manuscripts  (Chapter  XIV)  had  been  discovered.  As 
members  of  the  British  New  Testament  Company 
were  Drs.  Scrivener  and  Hort,  two  of  the  most  able 
textual  critics  of  the  New  Testament.  The  text  used 
by  the  revisers  was  the  result  of  a  critical  examination 
and  estimate  of  all  the  known  Greek  New  Testament 
manuscripts.  The  differences  of  the  Greek  text  used 
by  the  revisers  from  that  used  by  those  who  pre¬ 
pared  King  James’  Version,  according  to  Dr.  Scrive¬ 
ner’s  notes  (as  cited  by  Dr.  Schaff,  Companion,  p.  419, 
note)  are  seen  in  the  case  of  5,788  readings.  Only 
about  one  in  four  of  these  makes  any  material  differ¬ 
ence  in  the  substance  of  the  text.  Another  estimate 
placed  the  number  of  changes  in  the  English  text  at 
36,191,  or  an  average  of  four  and  one-half  changes 
in  each  of  the  7,960  verses.  In  other  words,  the  Re¬ 
vised  Version  of  the  New  Testament  differs  in  more 
than  36,000  places  from  the  Authorized  Version — at 
first  thought  almost  a  revolutionary  change. 

239.  There  is  a  remarkable  contrast  apparent  when 
the  translations  of  the  Authorized  and  Revised  Ver¬ 
sions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  compared. 
In  1611  the  Hebrew  language  was  quite  imperfectly 
understood,  while  the  Greek  had  been  well  mastered. 
Consequently  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  was  often 
inaccurately  rendered  into  English,  and  beautiful  Eng¬ 
lish  it  was  ;  while  the  New  Testament  was  a  fairly 
good  and  accurate  translation  of  the  Greek  text.  But 
the  Old  Testament  of  the  Revised  Version,  although 


294 


The  Revised  Version 


based  on  practically  the  same  Hebrew  text  as  that 
used  for  the  i6ii  version,  is  a  much  clearer  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Hebrew,  making  sense  of  many  passages 
that  were  obscure  in  King  James.  This  improvement 
is  very  marked  in  the  prophetical  and  poetical  books, 
where  obscurities,  as  we  all  know,  were  frequent  and 
many. 

The  New  Testament  of  the  Revised  Version  shows 
its  greatest  gains  over  its  predecessor  in  the  purity  of 
the  Greek  text  used  as  already  mentioned  (§238) 
and  in  the  rendering  of  such  passages  as  require  a 
more  discriminative  recognition  of  the  principles  of 
the  grammar  and  of  the  syntax  of  New  Testament 
Greek.  This  one  fact  has  introduced  large  improve¬ 
ments  in  the  translation  of  some  of  the  most  difficult 
passages  in  the  cogent  arguments  of  Paul  in  his  epis¬ 
tles.  Readers  cannot  but  note  the  excellent  improve¬ 
ments  of  the  Revised  Version  over  the  Authorized  in 
these  very  particulars. 

240.  Two  hundred  and  seventy  years  wrought  a 
noticeable  change  in  the  English  language.  The  Au¬ 
thorized  Version  has  been  in  use  nearly  three  hundred 
years,  and,  of  course,  contains  scores  and  hundreds  of 
words  and  expressions  whose  meanings  have  become 
greatly  modified,  or  entirely  changed.  One  of  the 
urgent  tasks  of  the  revisers  was  to  weed  out  these 
obsolete  words,  archaisms,  and  expressions  that  do 
not  now  mean  what  they  did  originally,  nor  what  the 
original  text  now  means.  The  archaic  character,  and 
bald  expressions  of  the  Authorized  Version  have 


Improvements  m  Form  295 

been  some  of  the  targets  at  which  scoffers  have  aimed 
their  shafts — evidently  forgetting,  or  winking  at,  the 
entirely  different  modern  sense  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  originals.  Again,  many  of  the  apparently  plain 
and  even  immodest  expressions  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  though  entirely  common  and  proper  three 
centuries  ago,  are  quite  barred  from  good  literature 
to-day. 

The  revisers  were  required  to  translate  the  origi¬ 
nals  into  modern,  modest,  and  yet  forcible  language 
that  would  properly  represent  the  original  texts,  and 
at  the  same  time  give  no  needless  offense  to  any 
thoughtful  reader.  This  modernization  of  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  Scripture,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  same  original  by  the  same  English  word, 
were  two  of  the  hard  tasks  of  the  revisers.  Such 
changes  in  words  were  made  as  “  Holy  Spirit  ”  for 
‘‘Holy  Ghost,”  “  Sheol”  or  “Hades”  for  “hell,” 
“  strange  ”  for  “  outlandish,”  “smooth  ”  for  “peeled,” 
“  inwards  ”  for  “  purtenance,”  “  condemnation  ”  for 
“  damnation,”  “  falsehood  ”  for  “  leasing.”  The  sec¬ 
ond  task  had  been  disregarded  by  the  1611  revisers  ;  in 
fact,  they  often  rather  tried  to  use  synonyms  for  the 
same  Greek  word,  and  thus  give  variety  and  beauty  to 
the  English  language,  and  in  this  they  were  marvel¬ 
ously  successful. 

241.  The  Revised  Version  also  possesses  other 
qualifications  for  its  claim  to  pre-eminence.  The  old 
arbitrary  chapter  and  verse  divisions — almost  always 
misleading — have  been  relegated  to  the  margin,  so 


296 


The  Revised  Version 


that  the  text  reads  continuously  like  any  other  regular 
book.  The  narrative  is  broken  up  into  paragraphs 
corresponding  to  the  divisions  and  sub-divisions  of 
thought.  The  chapter  headings,  chronological  mate¬ 
rial,  and  antiquated  marginal  references,  that  have 
come  to  occupy  so  prorriinent  a  place  in  the  Author¬ 
ized  Version  and  have  been  the  direct  cause  of  so 
much  misunderstanding  and  misinterpretation,  have 
been  omitted.  In  short,  the  Revised  Version  was 
intended  to  reproduce  as  faithfully  as  possible  in  Eng¬ 
lish  the  best  original  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments,  abandoning  the  man-made  and  fallible  chapter 
and  verse  breaks,  the  chapter  headings,  the  chrono¬ 
logical  material,  and  the  marginal  references.  In  ad¬ 
dition,  some  of  the  poetical  sections  in  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  are  put  into  verse-formation,  the  better  to 
show  forth  the  character  of  the  original  thought.  This 
fact  is  observed  particularly  in  the  so-called  poetical 
books,  and  but  rarely  in  the  prophets,  though  there 
are  in  these  latter  books  many  beautiful  poetic  sections 
and  passages  where  such  formation  would  better  rep¬ 
resent  the  original. 

242.  The  Revised  Version  was  produced  by  the 
hearty  co-operation  and  skill  of  about  seventy-five  of 
the  leading  biblical  scholars  of  Great  Britain  and 
America,  who  represented  the  most  prominent  relig¬ 
ious  bodies  of  the  two  great  English-speaking  coun¬ 
tries.  The  age  of  the  Authorized  Version,  its  antiquated 
language,  and  its  recognized  defects  of  several  kinds, 
were  some  of  the  reasons  for  the  production  of  a 


Why  Adopt  the  Revised  Version  ?  297 

modem  version  of  the  Bible.  Thus  the  sentiment 
and  scholarship  of  the  age  demanded  a  revision, 
and  the  best  critical  and  exegetical  scholarship 
of  the  times  produced  it.  What  more  could  we  ex¬ 
pect  than  that  the  churches  of  the  day  would  gladly 
welcome  such  a  revision  as  would  remove  the  defects 
of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  at  the  same  time  rep¬ 
resent  the  best  scholarship  of  the  times? 

These  existing  conditions  brought  about  for  the 
Revised  Version  a  hearty  welcome  by  most  of  the  bet¬ 
ter  trained  and  more  intelligent  Bible  students  of  the 
day.  They  early  recognized  its  merits  as  more  truly 
representing  the  original  texts,  and  its  clearness  of 
statement  in  language  that  accords  more  nearly  with 
such  language  as  we  use  in  the  simple,  dignified  tongue 
of  to-day.  But  these  linguistic  and  literary  improve¬ 
ments  did  not  everywhere  meet  instant  approval. 
There  were  critics  with  sharp  pens,  who  found  many 
defects  in  the  version.  Then  the  tender  and  sacred 
associations  with  King  James’  Version  held  any  varia¬ 
tion  therefrom  as  almost  sacrilegious,  and  refused  to' 
let  go  of  so  precious  a  volume  for  a  new  and  modern 
version.  All  these  considerations,  however,  as  in  the 
history  of  earlier  versions  were  not  sufficient  to  out¬ 
weigh  in  the  minds  of  the  more  intelligent  readers 
the  recognized  superiority  of  the  Revised  Version. 
From  its  first  appearance  it  has  won  favor  and  has 
increased  in  use  and  in  influence  throughout  the 
English-speaking  world.  Not  many  years  hence  the 
Authorized  Version  will  be  put  on  the  shelf  as  the 


298 


The  Revised  Version 


most  venerable  and  influential  among  all  the  past  ver¬ 
sions  of  the  Bible. 

243.  The  production  and  merits  of  the  American 
Standard  Revised  Version  of  1901  deserve  some 
especial  notice.  It  will  be  remembered  (§234)  that 
an  American  Revision  Committee  was  not  organized 
until  1871,  and  that  its  work  did  not  begin  until  Octo¬ 
ber  4,  1872,  more  than  two  years  after  that  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Committee.  Its  task  was  to  pass  in  review  the 
two  revisions  of  the  British  Committee  and  to  make 
any  suggestions  or  emendations  that  seemed  to  be  re¬ 
quired  from  the  viewpoint  of  American  scholarship, 
or  from  the  needs  of  the  American  churches.  But  the 
actual  terms  on  which  the  two  committees  finally 
jointly  prosecuted  their  work  were  not  concluded 
until  1875.  This  agreement  provided  that  the  sug¬ 
gestions  of  the  American  Committee  should  be  duly 
considered  by  the  British  Committee  before  the  final 
conclusion  of  their  labors,  and  that  they  (the  British 
Committee)  should  allow  the  American  Committee  to 
present  in  an  Appendix  to  the  Revised  Scriptures,  all 
the  remaining  differences  of  reading  and  rendering  of 
importance  which  the  British  Committee  should  decline 
to  adopt.  This  Appendix  was  to  be  published  in  every 
copy  of  the  Revised  Bible  during  a  term  of  fourteen 
years.  The  American  Committee  on  their  part 
pledged  themselves  to  give,  for  the  same  limited 
period,  no  sanction  to  the  publication  of  any  other 
editions  of  the  Revised  Version  than  those  issued  by 
the  University  Presses  of  England.’* 


THE 


HOLY  BIBLE 


containing  thk 


OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS 

TFMNSLATED  OUT  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  TONG.l’ES 


1U:1NG  TIIF,  VF.HSION  SET  EOETH  A  I)  If.ll 
COMPAFED  WITH  THE  MOST  ANCIENT  Al  THOKITIES  AND  REVISED 

A.D.  ]SS]-1S8.> 


Nctoli!  lEliitcli  1)0  ti)c  2lmfrirnii  l\r\)isio)i  (iromiiuttfc 

AD  UK)1 


.'.  "/.•IA7/.I/.//  Fin  I  ION 


NEW  YORK 

I2:i)oma0  /^cleon  ^0110 

:i7  EAST  isiii  s'ii;i:Er 

'J'itlc-Pagc  ol  tlic  Aiiierican  Slaiularil  Revised  Version 


Appendix  to  Revised  Version  299 

244.  The  pledge  of  the  American  Committee  tied 
its  hands,  for  a  period  of  fourteen  years  from  1885. 
Even  the  possibility  that  the  British  Committee  might 
in  some  subsequent  edition  make  use  of  the  Appendix 
suggestions  of  the  American  Committee  disappeared 
at  the  disbanding  of  the  former  Committee  very  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  Revised  Version  in  1885. 
The  American  Revision  Committee,  however,  con¬ 
tinued  its  organization,  for  it  saw  the  possibility  that 
an  “American  recension”  of  the  Revised  Version 
might  be  called  for.  This  Committee  suspected,  too, 
that  some  person  or  persons  would  probably,  in  the 
near  future,  transfer  the  American  preferences  in  the 
Appendix  to  the  main  body  of  the  text  and  thus  issue 
a  so-called  American  edition  of  the  Revised  Version. 
Such  an  edition  in  the  thought  of  the  public  would 
be  the  product  of  the  American  Committee,  or  at  least 
be  attributed  to  it  as  its  originator.  Such  a  conclusion 
manifestly  would  be  unjust,  for  the  Appendix  which 
contained  the  American  preferences  “  had  been  pre¬ 
pared  under  circumstances  which  rendered  fullness 
and  accuracy  almost  impossible.”  Such  a  list  of  dif¬ 
ferences,  even  reduced  to  its  smallest  compass,  as  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  Appendix  to  the  regular  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion  evidently  could  not  be  compiled  until  the  Revision 
proper  had  been  concluded.  And  its  compilation  re¬ 
quired  long  and  careful  consideration  of  many  points 
involved  in  previous  discussions.  But  the  British  pub¬ 
lic  had  become  impatient  at  the  long  delay  in  the  issu¬ 
ance  of  the  revision  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  de- 


300 


The  Revised  Version 


manded  of  the  University  Presses  a  speedy  delivery. 
The  Presses,  on  their  part,  insisted  on  a  prompt  trans¬ 
mission  by  the  American  Committee  of  the  Appendix. 
“  Prepared  under  such  pressure,  and  in  such  haste,  it 
was  obviously  inevitable  that  it  should  be  marked  by 
grave  imperfections  ”  (Preface  to  Am.  Rev.  Ver.). 
Evidently  then  the  mere  incorporation  of  this  Ap¬ 
pendix  in  the  text  could  not  in  any  true  sense  produce 
an  American  recension  ”  of  the  Revised  Version. 

245.  Another  pressing  need  of  an  American  Re¬ 
vised  Version  is  seen  in  the  use  in  the  1885  edition 
of  a  large  number  of  words  and  phrases  whose  mean¬ 
ing  and  whose  strange  spellings  are  wholly  antiquated. 
Some  of  these  are,  “  bewray,’’  “  grisled,”  “  holpen,” 
“  hough,”  “  marish,”  “  pourtray,”  “  sith,”  “  strowed.” 
Then  there  are  many  words  that  are  English  but  not 
American  in  meaning.  “  Corn  ”  means  grain  of  all 
kinds  in  England,  but  only  maize  or  Indian  corn  in 
America.  “  Chargers  ”  are  not  “  platters,”  but 
“  horses  ”  here.  ‘‘  Traders  ”  are  not  chapmen  ”  with 
us,  nor  are  “  merchants  ”  occupiers.”  “  Fat  ”  is  not 
“  vat  ”  here,  nor  is  ''  the  capital  ”  of  a  column  called 
a  “  chapiter.”  Our  soldiers  are  not  arrayed  in  ‘‘  har¬ 
ness,”  nor  do  we  take  our  shoes  “  to  be  clouted.” 
What  is  “  go  to  ”?  To  retain  such  words  in  our  Bible 
would  necessarily  require  a  glossary  to  explain  them. 

Some  other  characteristics  of  the  1885  version  re¬ 
quired  Americanizing.  The  use  of  “  a  and  an  ” 
before  strong  aspirates  and  vowels  is  in  utter  confu¬ 
sion.  My  ”  and  “  mine,”  “  thy  ”  and  thine  ”  suffer 


Marginal  References  301 

likewise  at  the  hands  of  the  revisers.  Which, 
meaning  “  who,”  is  an  archaism  that  should  be  thrown 
out ;  “  the  which  ”  belongs  to  the  same  class.  “  God 
forbid  ”  and  “  would  God  ”  are  not  a  translation  of  the 
Hebrew.  They  are  simply  “  far  be  it  ”  and  “  would 
that.”  These  and  scores  of  other  Anglicisms  are 
found  in  the  1885  edition — many  of  them  puzzling  and 
confusing  to  American  readers. 

246.  The  Revised  Version  of  1885  swept  away 
all  the  excrescences  of  the  Authorized  Version,  such 
as  chapter  headings,  chronology,  marginal  references, 
etc.,  and  began  anew.  Its  sole  marginal  references 
were  such  as  cited  the  readings  of  the  ancient  ver¬ 
sions.  The  American  Committee  voted  against  the 
British  selections  for  the  margin,  because,  as  Dr. 
Osgood  of  the  Old  Testament  Company  states, 
out  of  the  two  hundred  and  forty  references,  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty-one  are  not  supported  by  the  versions, 
and  in  thirty-three  places  not  a  version  supports  the 
reference.  The  American  Committee  therefore  took 
in  hand  the  matter  of  reducing  and  largely  reduced 
the  number  of  references  to  versions. 

Early  in  the  work  of  revision  the  British  Committee 
considered  the  matter  of  furnishing  the  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion  with  a  complete  set  of  marginal  references.  After 
considerable  progress  had  been  made  in  that  direction, 
especially  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  it  was  decided  to  issue 
the  Revision  without  any  such  helps.  But  in 
1895  the  University  Presses  undertook  to  meet  the 
increasing  demand,  both  at  home  and  in  America,  for 


302 


The  Revised  Version 


an  edition  of  the  complete  Revised  Version  with  mar¬ 
ginal  references/'  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
superintend  the  work.  The  general  editorship  was 
put  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  Stokoe,  of  Oxford.  The 
Revised  Version  “with  revised  marginal  references" 
appeared  from  the  University  Presses  in  1898.  In  the 
preface  to  this  edition  this  statement  occurs :  “  The 
marginal  references  given  in  the  original  edition  of 
the  Authorized  Version  of  1611  have  been  retained 
as  far  as  possible,  and  the  contributors  have  availed 
themselves  largely  of  the  references  in  Dr.  Scrivener's 
Paragraph  Bible,  which  they  were  instructed  to  make 
the  basis  of  their  work." 

247.  The  surviving  members  of  the  American  Re¬ 
vision  Committee  were  keenly  conscious  of  the  defects 
of  the  Version  of  1885,  and  early  after  its  appear¬ 
ance  began  to  plan  the  preparation  of  an  edition 
that  would  fully  represent  the  results  of  their  own 
research  and  the  requirements  of  the  American  Bible- 
reading  public.  Their  task  was  not  simply  to  incor¬ 
porate  in  the  body  of  the  Bible  their  preferences  as 
expressed  in  the  appendices  to  the  Revised  Version, 
but  thoroughly  to  revise  those  preferences  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  their  own  opinions.  Their  published  list 
of  preferences  was  so  condensed  as  not  fully  to  repre¬ 
sent  them.  Being  now  untrammeled  by  any  relations 
with  the  British  Committee  they  went  well  beyond  that 
published  list,  and  introduced  into  the  text  emenda¬ 
tions,  corrections,  and  changes  (originally  adopted  by 
a  two-thirds  majority  of  their  own  committee),  neither 


Contract  for  Publication  303 

approved  by  the  British  Committee  nor  inserted  in 
the  Appendix.  Again,  this  American  Committee 
freely  revised  the  translation,  language,  phrases,  and 
thought  where  it  seemed  to  them  best  for  the  better 
expression  for  American  readers  of  the  original  lan¬ 
guages. 

With  their  practical  ideas  of  simplicity,  clearness, 
and  value,  the  Committee  made  ample  preparations  to 
issue  a  complete  edition.  Accordingly  they  prepared, 
with  the  aid  of  scholars  not  members  of  the  Commit¬ 
tee,  a  full  set  of  new  marginal  references ;  they 
revised  and  greatly  reduced  the  references  to  ancient 
versions  or  texts ;  they  printed  at  the  top  of  each  page 
in  a  brief,  succinct  form  the  contents  of  that  page ; 
they  re-paragraphed  the  whole  Bible ;  and  sought  to 
remove  inconsistencies  of  punctuation. 

An  outline  of  the  enormous  task  undertaken  and 
completed  by  the  surviving  members  of  the  American 
Committee  is  given  in  the  “  Preface  to  the  American 
Edition.” 

248.  About  two  years  before  the  expiration  of  the 
period  of  fourteen  years,  already  noted  (§243)  the 
American  Revision  Committee  entered  into  an  agree¬ 
ment  with  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  of  New  York  City, 
by  which  that  firm  was  authorized  to  publish,  in  or 
after  the  summer  of  1899,  the  American  Standard 
Edition  of  the  Revised  Bible.  The  members  of  the 
Committee,  who  had  been  at  work  for  some  years, 
agreed  on  their  part  to  prepare  the  text  for  the  press. 
Their  work  on  this  edition,  as  on  that  that  appeared 


304 


The  Revised  Version 


1881-1885,  was  purely  a  gratuitous  service,  rendered 
the  cause  of  religion  in  general  and  Christianity  in 
particular. 

Just  before  the  expiration  of  the  fourteen  years,  the 
University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  issued 
the  “  American  Revised  Version,”  an  edition  in  which 
the  American  Appendix  had  been  taken  and  incor¬ 
porated  into  the  text,  and  accompanied  by  the  mar¬ 
ginal  references  prepared  by  the  special  British  Com¬ 
mittee  already  described.  In  other  words,  the  Uni¬ 
versity  Presses  took  the  precaution  to  supply  the 
American  market  with  an  ”  American  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion,”  while  the  American  Committee  were  still 
restrained  by  their  pledge  to  those  Presses  from 
issuing  or  sanctioning  the  issuance  of  any  other  than 
the  Revised  Version,  of  1885.  Naturally  a  storm 
arose,  which  gradually  calmed  down  upon  the  advance 
to  the  front  of  the  work  of  the  American  Revision 
Committee. 

249.  The  Standard  American  Edition  of  the  Re¬ 
vised  Version,  authorized  by  the  American  Committee 
of  Revision,  was  published  August  26,  1901,  by 
Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  of  New  York  City.  It  em¬ 
bodies  the  ripest  scholarship  of  Great  Britain 
and  America  (1881-1885),  fully  revised  and  • 
corrected  (1901)  to  suit  it  to  the  demands 
and  requirements  of  American  Bible  students  and 
readers.  As  it  now  stands  it  is  the  most  perfect 
English  Bible  in  existence,  and  will  be  the 
standard  version  for  English  readers  for  decades  to 


ReceptioJi  of  A^neric mi  Revision  305 

come.  It  is  the  crystallization  of  the  best  elements 
of  ripe  scholarship  and  sound  learning,  and  is  a  fitting 
climax  to  the  tremendous  advances  made  in  biblical 
learning  during  the  last  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury.  The  hearty  reception  given  it,  and  the  readiness 
with  which  it  has  been  adopted  by  scholars  and  the 
churches  are  a  glowing  tribute  to  its  excellence  and  its 
adaptability  to  the  requirements  of  the  religious  life 
of  America. 

250.  This  American  Revised  Version  has  achieved 
an  ever-increasing  popularity  since  its  appearance  five 
years  ago  (1901).  The  fact  that  it  has  been  indorsed 
almost  universally  by  religious  teachers  and  leaders 
of  all  shades  of  belief,  has  given  it  a  secure  foothold. 
Its  value  is  now  being  recognized  by  every  one  who 
has  taken  the  trouble  to  compare  its  readings  with 
those  of  the  Authorized  Version.  Its  adoption,  too, 
by  the  American  Bible  Society,  has  given  its  transla¬ 
tion  a  new  value  among  Bible  students  in  general,  and 
promises  for  it  general  acceptance  among  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Bible-reading  public  in  far  less  years  than  the 
most  sanguine  had  dared  to  hope.  So  constant  has 
been  the  demand  for  this  unrivaled  Bible  that  the  en¬ 
terprising  publishers  who  own  the  copyright  have 
issued  it  in  more  than  100  different  styles.  The 
American  public  is  quick  to  appreciate  its  real  worth, 
and  within  a  few  short  years  will  surely  see  its  general 
adoption  in  every  line  of  biblical  and  religious  service. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER  I 

Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts, 
1895,  Chap  I;  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible,  in  Foot-Notes. 

CHAPTER  II 

Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts^ 
Chap.  II;  Variorum  Teachers’  Bible. 


Part  I.  The  Old  Testament 

CHAPTER  III 

Weir,  T.  H.,  A  Short  History  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  1899;  Ginsburg,  C.  D.,  Introduction  to 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  1897;  Merrill,  G.  E.,  Parchments  of  the 
Faith,  1894,  Chaps.  Ill,  IV;  Briggs,  Study  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  Chaps.  Ill  and  VII. 

CHAPTER  IV 

Mills,  Three  Months’  Residence  at  Nablus,  1864;  Price, 
Ira  M.,  The  Monuments  and  the  Old  Testament,  1905, 
Chap.  XXIV;  Eckstein,  A.,  Geschichte  und  Bedeutung  der 
Stadt  Sichem,  1886;  Green,  W.  H.,  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament;  The  Text,  pp.  129-141;  Barton,  W.  E., 
“The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,”  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  October, 
1903;  Watson,  W  Scott,  “A  Critical  Copy  of  the  Samari¬ 
tan  Pentateuch,  written  in  A.  D.  1232,”  in  Hebraica,  Vol. 
IX  (1892-93),  pp.  216-225;  Vol.  X  (1893-94),  pp.  122-156; 
Margoliouth,  G.  Descriptive  List  of  the  Hebrew  and  Sa- 

307 


3o8 


Bibliography 

maritan  Manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum,  1893;  Konig, 
Ed.,  “The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,”  Hastings,  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible,  Extra  Volume. 

CHAPTER  V 

Swete,  H.  B.,  An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in 
Greek,  1900;  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Article 
“Septuagint”  by  Nestle;  Cheyne,  Encyclopaedia  Biblica, 
Art.  “Texts  and  Versions/’  §§  46-55;  Merrill,  G.  E.,  Parch¬ 
ments  of  the  Faith,  Chap.  V;  Briggs,  Study  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  Chap.  VIII. 

CHAPTER  VI 

Swete,  Introduction  to  Old  Testament  in  Greek;  Burk- 
itt,  F.  C.,  Fragments  of  the  Books  of  Kings  according  to 
the  Translations  of  Aquila,  1897;  Field,  Origenis  Hex- 
aplorum  quae  Supersunt,  1875;  Art.  “Hexapla”  in  Diction¬ 
ary  of  Christian  Biography;  in  same  see  “Symmachus,” 
“Theodotion.” 

CHAPTER  VII 

Article  by  H.  J.  White  on  “Vulgate”  in  Hastings,  Dic¬ 
tionary  of  the  Bible;  Berger,  S.,  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate 
pendant  les  premiers  siecles  du  moyen  age,  Paris,  1893; 
Art.  “Hieronymus”  (Jerome)  in  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography;  Life  of  Jerome  in  Select  Library  of  Nicene 
and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  xvi-xxv,  1903; 
Copinger,  W.  A.,  Incunabula  Biblica,  or  the  First  Half- 
Century  of  the  Latin  Bible,  London,  1892;  White,  H.  J., 
“The  Latin  Versions”  in  Scrivener-Miller,  Introduction  to 
the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  4th  ed.,  1894,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  56-90;  Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Handbook  to  the  Textual  Criti* 
cism  of  the  New  Testament,  1891,  pp.  184-203;  Smith,  H. 
P.,  “The  Value  of  the  Vulgate  Old  Testament  for  Textual 
Criticism”  in  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  April, 
1891. 


309 


Bibliography 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Article  by  Eb.  Nestle  on  ‘‘Syriac  Versions”  in  Hastings, 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  for  list  of  monographs  on  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament;  Barnes,  W.  E.,  “On  the  In¬ 
fluence  of  the  Septuagint  on  the  Peshitta,”  Journal  of  Theo¬ 
logical  Studies,  II,  i86,  187;  Wright,  W.,  A  Short  History 
of  Syriac  Literature,  London,  1895;  Barnes,  W.  E.,  ‘‘The 
printed  editions  of  the  Peshitta  of  the  Old  Testament,”  in 
Expository  Times,  Sept.,  1898,  pp,  560-562. 

CHAPTER  IX 

Article  by  T.  Walker  on  ‘‘Targum”  in  Hastings,  Dic¬ 
tionary  of  the  Bible,  for  literature  in  general,  and  on  the 
three  divisions  of  Old  Testament;  by  Schiller-Szinessy  in 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica;  Green,  W.  H.,  Introduction  to 
Old  Testament:  The  Text,  pp.  102-110;  Merrill,  Parch¬ 
ments  of  the  Faith,  Chap.  VI. 

CHAPTER  X 

Articles  on  ‘‘Egyptian  Versions,”  “Ethiopic  Version,” 
“Armenian  Version,”  “Arabic  Versions,”  under  these 
heads;  and  “Georgian  Version,”  “Gothic  Version,”  and 
“Slavonic  Version”  under  “Versions  (Georgian,  Gothic, 
Slavonic)”  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible;  Kenyon, 
F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts,  pp.  73-77. 

CHAPTER  XI 

Article  on  “Texts  and  Versions”  in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica; 
Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts, 
Chap.  V,  §  5. 

CHAPTER  XII 

Articles  on  “Apocrypha,”  by  M.  R.  James,  in  Encyclo¬ 
paedia  Biblica;  by  F.  C.  Porter  in  Hastings,  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible;  by  G.  F.  Moore  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia; 
Churton,  Uncanonical  and  Apocryphal  Scriptures,  1884; 


310 


Bibl iogra phy 

Bissell,  The  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament,  1890  (Com¬ 
mentary  in  the  Lange  series);  Ball,  C.  J.,  Variorum  Apoc¬ 
rypha,  1892;  The  Revised  Version  of  the  Apocrypha,  1895. 


Part  II.  The  New  Testament 

CHAPTER  XIII 

Westcott  and  Hort,  Introduction  to  the  Text  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  Vol.  II,  §§  98-106;  Scrivener-Miller,  A 
Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament; 
Mitchell,  E.  C.,  Critical  Handbook  of  the  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  new  ed.,  1896,  pp.  87-113;  Sitterly,  Praxis  in  Manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  1898;  Lake,  K.,  Text  of  the 
New  Testament,  1900;  Merrill,  G.  E.,  The  Parchments  of 
the  Faith,  Chaps.  VIII-X;  Schaff,  Introduction  to  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Edition  of  Westcott  and  Hort’s  The  New  Testament 
in  the  Original  Greek,  pp.  xiii-xxxv. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

In  addition  to  the  citations  under  Chapter  XIII,  Merrill, 
Parchments  of  the  Faith,  Chaps.  XI-XV;  Abbot,  Ezra, 
“Comparative  Antiquity  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  Manu¬ 
scripts”  in  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society, 
Vol.  X,  pp.  189-200;  Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Facsimiles  of  Biblical 
Manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum,  1901,  Chap.  Ill;  Har¬ 
ris,  J.  R.,  The  Annotators  of  the  Codex  Bezae,  1901. 

CHAPTER  XV 

Schaff,  P.,  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  of  the 
English  Version,  pp.  208-224;  Murray,  J.  O.  F.,  “Textual 
Criticism  (of  New  Testament),”  Hastings,  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible,  Extra  Vol.  §§  24-68;  Westcott  and  Hort,  In¬ 
troduction  to  New  Testament  in  Greek,  1882;  Warfield,  B. 
B.,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  1890. 


Bibliography  3 1 1 

CHAPTER  XVI 

Article,  “Vulgate”  by  H.  J.  White,  Hastings,  Diction¬ 
ary  of  the  Bible;  Burkitt,  F.  C.,  The  Old  Latin  and  the 
Itala  (Cambridge  Texts  and  Studies,  iv.  3,  1896);  Article 
“Latin  Versions — The  Old,”  by  H.  A.  A,  Kennedy,  Hast¬ 
ings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible;  Berger,  S.,  Histoire  de  la 
Vulgate,  1893;  Kaulen,  Handbuch  zur  Vulgate,  1870;  Ken¬ 
yon,  F,  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts,  Chaps. 
VIII  and  IX;  and  other  articles  cited  under  Bibliography, 
Chap.  VII. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

The  literature  on  Chaps.  VIII  and  X,  and  additional 
thereto;  Bewer,  J.  A.,  The  History  of  the  New  Testament 
Canon  in  the  Syrian  Church,  1900;  English  trans¬ 
lation  from  the  Arabic  of  Tatian’s  Diatessaron  by  H.  W. 
Hogg,  in  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  additional  Vol. 
(1897),  pp.  35-138;  Zahn-Hjelt,  Die  altsyrische  Evangelien- 
iibersetzung  und  Tatians  Diatessaron,  1903;  Murdock, 
James,  The  Syriac  New  Testament  translated  into  Eng¬ 
lish  from  the  Peshitto  Versions,  Boston,  1893.  Burkitt,  F. 
C.,  on  “Coptic  and  other  Versions,”  in  Encyclopcedia 
Biblica,  Vol.  IV,  cols.  5006-5012. 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

The  literature  on  Chapter  XV,  and  additional  thereto; 
Scrivener-Miller,  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,  4th  ed.,  1894;  Gregory,  C.  R.,  Textkritik 
des  Neuen  Testamentes,  1900;  Nestle,  Eb.,  Introduction  to 
the  Greek  New  Testament,  1901;  Vincent,  M.  R.,  History 
of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  1900;  Ken¬ 
yon,  F.  G.,  Handbook  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,  1901;  Lake,  K.,  The  Text  of  the  New 
Testament  (elementary),  1900. 


3 1 2  Bibliography 

Part  III.  English  Versions  of  the  Bible 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Article  by  J.  H.  Lupton  on  “Versions  (English)/’  in 
Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra  Vol.,  pp.  236- 
238;  Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manu¬ 
scripts,  pp.  189-199;  Watson,  R.  S.,  Caedmon,  the  First 
English  Poet,  1875;  Turk,  M.  H.,  The  Legal  Code  of 
Hilfred  the  Great,  1893,  pp.  33-37;  Skeat,  W.  W.,  The  Holy 
Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Northumbrian,  and  Old  Mercian 
Versions,  1871-77;  White,  R.  M.,  The  Ormulum,  2d  ed., 
1878;  Wright,  T.,  The  Religious  Poems  of  William  de 
Shoreham,  1849;  Bramley,  H  R.,  The  Psalter  or  Psalms  of 
David  and  Certain  Canticles  ...  by  Richard  Rolle,  of 
Hampole,  1884.  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible,  1876,  Vol.  I, 
PP-  3-36;  Pattison,  T.  H.,  Hist,  of  the  English  Bible,  1894, 
Chap.  I. 

CHAPTER  XX 

Article  by  Lupton,  “Versions  (English)/’  in  Hastings, 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra  Vol.,  pp.  238-241;  Kenyon, 
F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts,  pp.  199-208; 
Forshall-Madden,  The  Holy  Bible  of  the  Wycliffite  Ver¬ 
sions,  4  vols.,  1850;  Lechler,  John  Wycliffe,  1878;  Bender, 
W.,  Der  Reformator  J.  Wiclif  als  Bibeliibersetzer,  1884; 
Matthew,  F.  D.,  J.  Wyclif’s  English  Works,  1880;  Skeat, 
W.  W.,  Preface  to  the  New  Testament  in  English  (Pur- 
vey’s  revision),  1879,  and  “Dialect  of  Wyclif’s  Bible”  in 
Transactions  of  Philological  Society,  Part  I,  for  1895-96; 
Westcott,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  Chap.  I  and 
App.  I;  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible,  Vol.  I,  Chaps.  I-V; 
Pattison,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Bible,  Chap.  11. 

CHAPTER  XXI 

Demaus,  R.,  William  Tindale,  ed.  1904;  Article  by  Lup¬ 
ton,  “Versions  (English),”  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the 


Bibliography  313 

Bible,  Extra  Vol.,  pp.  241-244;  Westcott,  History  of  the 
English  Bible,  Chap.  II,  §  i,  and  III,  §  i;  Hoare,  H.  W., 
Evolution  of  the  English  Bible,  1901,  Chap.  V;  Kenyon,  F. 
G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts,  pp.  211-218; 
Anderson,  C.,  Annals  of  the  English  Bible,  1845,  Vol.  I, 
PP-  1-5511  Ery,  Fr.,  A  Bibliographical  Description  of  the 
Edition  of  the  New  Testament,  Tyndale’s  Version  in  Eng¬ 
lish,  1878;  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible,  Vol.  I,  Chaps.  VI- 
XVI;  Tyndale’s  Works,  by  Parker  Society;  Pattison,  Hist, 
of  Eng.  Bible,  Chap.  III. 

CHAPTER  XXII 

Fry,  Fr.,  The  Bible  by  Coverdale,  1867;  Westcott,  His¬ 
tory  of  the  English  Bible,  Chap.  II,  §§  2-5,  and  App.  IV; 
Chap.  Ill,  §§  2-5;  Anderson,  C.,  Annals  of  the  English 
Bible,  Vol.  I,  pp.  551-592,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1-252;  Hoare, 
Evolution  of  the  English  Bible,  Chap.  VI;  Coverdale’s 
Works,  by  Parker  Society;  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible, 
Vol.  I,  Chaps.  XVII-XXXI. 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

Hoare,  H.  W.,  Evolution  of  the  English  Bible,  Chap. 
VII;  Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manu¬ 
scripts,  pp.  224-229;  Anderson,  C.,  Annals  of  the  English 
Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  253-532;  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible, 
Vol.  II,  Chaps.  XXXII-XLII;  Westcott,  History  of  the 
English  Bible,  Chap.  II,  §§  7  and  8,  and  Chap.  Ill,  §§  6-8; 
Article  by  Lupton,  “Versions  (English)”  in  Hastings,  Dic¬ 
tionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra  Vol.,  pp.  249-253;  Carleton,  J. 
G.,  The  Part  of  Rheims  in  the  Making  of  the  English 
Bible,  1902. 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  The  Authorized  Edition  of  the 
English  Bible  (1611),  1884;  Article  by  Lupton,  “Versions 
(English),”  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra 


314  Bibl iography 

Volume,  pp.  253-257;  Westcott,  History  of  the  English 
Bible,  1868,  Chap.  II,  §  9,  III,  §  9;  Anderson,  Annals  of 
the  English  Bible;  Eadie,  J.,  The  English  Bible,  Vol.  II, 
Chaps.  XLIII-XLIX;  Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the 
Ancient  Manuscripts,  pp.  234-245;  Hoare,  H.  W.,  Evolution 
of  the  English  Bible,  Chaps.  VIII  and  IX;  Pattison,  Hist, 
of  Eng.  Bible,  Chap.  VI. 

CHAPTER  XXV 

Article  by  J.  H.  Eupton,  “Versions  (English),”  in  Hast¬ 
ings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra  Vol.,  pp.  258-271; 
Hoare,  H.  W.,  Evolution  of  the  English  Bible,  Chap.  IX; 
Kenyon,  F.  G.,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts, 
pp.  235-245;  Kennedy,  Ely  Lectures  on  the  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion  of  the  New  Testament,  1882;  Westcott,  Some  Les¬ 
sons  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  1897; 
Documentary  History  of  the  American  Committee  on  Re¬ 
vision,  1885;  Burgon,  J.  W.,  The  Revision  Revised,  1883  (a 
sharp  arraignment  of  the  Revisers);  Whitney,  S.  W.,  The 
Revisers’  Greek  Text;  Schaff,  P.,  Companion  to  the  Greek 
Testament  and  English  Version,  1883;  Chambers,  T,  W.,  A 
Companion  to  the  Revised  Old  Testament,  1885. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 


Carrying  the  most  important  dates  mentioned  in  the  text 

of  the  book. 


B.  C. 

About  432. — Expulsion  of  Manasseh  from  the  priesthood 
at  Jerusalem,  and  probable  establishment  of 
Jehovah  worship  at  Samaria,  with  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  as  the  Scriptures  of  the  Samaritans. 

284-132. — Probable  date  of  the  translation  of  the 
Septuagint. 

A.  D. 

128. — Aquila’s  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment. 

About  150. — The  Syriac  Old  Testament. 

180-192. — Theodotion’s  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

193-21 1. — Symmachus’  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

In  200. — The  Old  Latin  Version  of  the  Bible  extant. 

186-254. — Origen:  Hexapla  of  the  Old  Testament. 

260-340. — Eusebius  of  Caesarea;  Revision  ‘th  help  of 
Pamphilus  of  Origen’s  Greek  text,  with 
other  readings. 

Before  31 1. — Lucian’s  revision  of  the  Septuagint. 

Before  31 1. — Hesychius’  revision  of  the  Septuagint. 

310-383. — The  Gothic  Version  of  Ulfilas. 

383-404. — Jerome’s  revisions  and  translations. 

About  400. — The  Ethiopic  Version. 

About  400. — The  Armenian  Version. 

After  400. — The  Targums  in  written  form. 

400-500. — The  Georgian  Version. 


315 


3i6 


Chronological  Table 

About  590. — The  Sahidic  Version. 

597. — Augustine,  the  monk,  lands  at  Kent,  Eng¬ 
land. 

About  670.— -Caedmon’s  paraphrases  of  the  Bible. 

About  7oo.“The  Bohairic  Version. 

674-735. — Venerable  Bede — the  Gospel  of  John. 

Before  709. — Aldhelm  of  Malmesbury — first  Anglo-Saxon 
translation  of  the  Psalms. 

Before  709.— Egbert — a  translation  of  the  Gospels. 

848-901. — King  Alfred — embodied  Pentateuchal  laws  in 
his  national  code. 

About  950.— Aldred — interlinear  Anglo-Saxon  paraphrase 
of  the  Gospels  (Lindisfarne  Gospels). 

970-1000.— -Abbot  ^Ifric  produced  “the  Durham  Gos¬ 
pels,”  also  an  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the 
Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  etc. 

(1066. — The  Norman  Invasion-Battle  of  Hastings.) 

About  1215. — The  Ormulum — metrical  version  of  parts 
of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts. 

About  1320. — Psalter  in  English  prose,  credited  to  Wil¬ 
liam  of  Shoreham. 

About  1320. — Birth  of  John  Wycliffe. 

1338. — Wycliffe  entered  Oxford. 

About  1340. — Rolle  of  Hampole  translated  the  Psalter 
into  English,  with  Commentary. 

1361. — Wycliffe  made  master  of  Balliol  College, 
Oxford. 

i374-“Wycliffe  appointed  to  a  living  at  Eutter- 
worth. 

1380. — Wycliffe’s  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
completed. 

1382. — Wycliffe’s  Bible  with  help  of  Nicholas  of 
Hereford  completed. 

1384.— Death  of  Wycliffe. 

1388. — -Purvey’s  harmonization  of  Wycliffe  and 
Hereford’s  work. 


Chronological  Table  317 

1408. — Action  forbidding  use  of  unauthorized 
Bibles. 

(1453. — Constantinople  captured  by  the  Turks.) 

1454.  — Printing  from  movable  types  invented. 

1455.  — First  complete  Bible — the  Vulgate — printed. 
(1458. — Greek  language  first  taught  in  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Paris.) 

(1470. — Printing  press  introduced  into  England  by 
Caxton.) 

(1476. — First  Greek  grammar  published.) 

(1480. — First  Greek  lexicon  published.) 

1484. — Birth  of  William  Tyndale. 

(1488. — First  Hebrew  Bible  printed.) 

(1492. — Grocyn  became  first  teacher  of  Greek  at 
Oxford.) 

(Columbus  discovered  America.) 

(1497. — Vasco  da  Gama  rounded  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope.) 

(1503. — First  Hebrew  grammar  published.) 

(1506. — First  Hebrew  lexicon  published.) 

1516. — First  Greek  New  Testament — Erasmus’ — ap¬ 
peared. 

(1520. — Magellan  sailed  around  the  world.) 

1522.  — Luther’s  New  Testament  in  German. 

1523.  — Tyndale  goes  to  London  to  translate  the 

Bible. 

1524.  — Tyndale  withdraws  from  London  to  Ham¬ 

burg  and  Wittenberg. 

1525.  — Tyndale’s  New  Testament  printed  at  Col¬ 

ogne  and  Worms. 

1526-9. — Tyndale’s  New  Testaments  burned  at  St. 
Paul’s  in  London. 

1528.  — Latin  Bible  of  Pagninus. 

1529.  — Zurich  Bible  completed. 

1530.  — Tyndale  printed  his  translation  of  the  Pen¬ 

tateuch. 


3i8  Chronological  Table 

I534"5-— Sebastian  Munster’s  Latin  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

Tyndale’s  revision  of  his  Pentateuch  and 
New  Testament, 
i535-~Obvetan’s  French  Bible, 

Tyndale  treacherously  arrested  and  im¬ 
prisoned. 

Coverdale’s  Bible  reaches  England. 

1536. — Tyndale  strangled  and  burned  at  Vilvorde 
Castle,  October  6. 

1537 — Coverdale’s  Bible  licensed  by  royal  author¬ 
ity. 

John  Rogers’  “Matthew”  Bible  distributed 
by  authority  of  Henry  VIII. 

1539.  — “The  Great  Bible,”  edited  by  Coverdale,  au¬ 

thorized  by  Cromwell. 

Taverner’s  Bible. 

1540.  — The  Great  Bible  issued  with  Cranmer’s  Pre¬ 

face. 

1543. — Royal  restrictions  on  public  and  private 
reading  of  the  Bible. 

1545-6. — Council  of  Trent,  establishing  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  canon  of  the  Bible. 

1546. — Wholesale  destruction  of  Bibles. 

1547— Death  of  Henry  VIII,  and  accession  of  Ed¬ 
ward  VI. 

l55i,--Castalio’s  Latin  Bible. 

Stephanus’  Greek  New  Testament. 

1553. — Death  of  Edward  VI,  and  accession  of  Mary 
Tudor. 

1553-8.— Persecution  and"  martyrdom  of  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  Latimer,  John  Rogers,  and  hundreds 
of  others, 

1557. — Geneva  New  Testament,  by  Whittingham. 

1558.  — Death  of  Mary  Tudor,  and  accession  of 

Elizabeth. 


Chronological  Table  319 

1560. — Genevan  Version  of  the  Bible. 

1568. — The  Bishops’  Bible. 

1579. — The  Latin  Old  Testament  by  Tremellius. 
1582. — The  Rheims  New  Testament. 

(1588. — The  Spanish  Armada  defeated.) 

1603.  — Death  of  Elizabeth,  and  the  accession  of 

James  I. 

1604.  — Hampton  Court  Conference. 

1609-10. — The  Douai  Old  Testament, 

1611. — The  Authorized  Version. 

1614. — Slightly  altered  edition  of  Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion. 

1629. — A  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version. 

1701. — Bishop  Lloyd’s  Bible  with  Ussher’s  chronol¬ 
ogy. 

1762. — Cambridge  Bible  by  Blayney. 

1844. — Tischendorf’s  discovery  at  Mt.  Sinai. 

1857. — Tregelles’  critical  Greek  text  of  Revelation. 
1870. — First  definite  step  toward  revision. 

1881. — Revised  Version — New  Testament. 

1885. — Revised  Version  of  Bible  complete. 

1895. — Revised  Apocrypha. 

1901. — American  Standard  Revised  Version. 


■  ■■ 


■  ''U 


a 

I 

I 

I I 

i 

I 

i 

I 

1 

.  j 

i 


i 


■  ..C  's 


j 


TOPICAL  INDEX 


Figures  refer  to  pages,  and  those  in  heavy  type  give  the  main  descrip¬ 
tion.  Stars  indicate  illustrations. 


Abbot,  Ezra,  157,  285 
Abishua,  reputed  writer  of  Sam. 
roll,  45 

Abraham,  Apocalypse  of,  Pseude- 
pig.  book,  125 

Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  Testa¬ 
ment  of,  Pseudepig.  book,  125 
Achiacharus,  Story  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  127 

Act.,  abbreviation  for  Acts  and 
Epistles  of  cursive  Manuscripts, 
142 

Acta  Pauli,  180 

Adam,  Testament  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  125 

Adler,  see  Assemani 
Adrian,  brought  original  of  Cotton 
Manuscript  to  England,  213 
iElfric,  translates  Gospels  into  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  213;  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  translated  parts  of 
Old  Testament,  214 
*Alcuin,  revised  Vulgate  for  Charle¬ 
magne,  *168 

Aldhelm,  abbot  of  Malmesbury, 
minstrel  preacher,  209;  first 
known  translator  of  Psalter  into 
Anglo-Saxon,  gio 

Aldred,  a  priest,  wrote  interlinear 
Anglo-Saxon  paraphrase  in  Cot¬ 
ton  Manuscript,  213 
Alexander  II,  Czar,  patron  of 
Tischendorf,  144;  published  Codex 
Sinaiticus,  146 
Alexander  the  Great,  4O 
Alexandria,  home  of  Jews,  50 
Alexandrian  type  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Manuscript,  194 
Alford,  dean,  co- translator  of  John 
and  Epistles,  284 

Alfred,  king  of  England,  to  whom 
a  Psalter  was  attributed,  211-12 
Allix,  Peter,  discovered  Codex 
Ephraem  in  Paris,  153 
Ambrose,  on  Old  Latin,  r6o 
♦American  Standard  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion,  298-305;  specimen  page, 
*4;  title  page,  *298 
Ammonius  of  Alexandria,  sections 
of  the  Gospels,  138 


American  Revision  Committee,  or¬ 
ganization,  288;  co-operation  with 
British  Com.,  288-91;  prepara¬ 
tion  of  American  Revision,  298- 
305;  expunging  archaisms,  300; 
new  marg.  refs.,  301;  issuance  of 
American  Standard  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion,  304 

Angus,  Dr.,  enlists  American  schol¬ 
ars  in  Bible  Revision,  287 
Aphraates,  Syrian  church  father, 
quotes  New  Testament,  87 
Apoc.,  abbreviation  for  Apocalypse 
in  New  Testament  cursive  Manu¬ 
script,  142 

Apocalypse,  absent  from  Peshitta, 
180 

Apocrypha  of  Old  Testament, 
Chapter  XII 

Apocryphal  books  of  Old  Testament, 

121- 2;  classified  and  described, 

122- 3;  why  not  in  Canon?  129- 

130 

Apocryphal  books  in  Septuagint,  55 
Apocryphal  books  in  the  Vulgate,  77 
“Apocryphal  Correspondence  of  St. 
Paul  and  the  Corinthians,”  in 
Syriac,  180 

A  post.,  abbreviation  for  the  Lec¬ 
tionary  of  Acts  and  Epistles  in 
cursive  Manuscripts,  142 
♦Aquila,  translator  of  Greek  Ver¬ 
sion,  *64 

Arabic  Versions,  108,  187-8 
Aramaic,  Old  Testament  text,  92 
ff. ;  geographical  divisions,  182 
Aristeas,  letter  of,  51 
Aristion,  presbyter,  to  whom  Mark 
16:9-20  is  assigned,  186 
Armenian  Version,  106-7 
Aseneth,  Lifeof ,  Pseudepig.  book,  1 25 
♦Ashburnham  Pentateuch,  *84 
Assemani  and  Adler,  describe  Syriac 
Lectionary  in  Vatican,  188 
Athanasius,  St.,  Epistle  of,  57;  the 
humble,  148 

Athos,  Mt.,  Iberian  Monastery  on,T03 
Augustine,  St.,  and  Old  Latin  Bible, 
160;  on  Vulgate,  166,  lands  at 
Kent,  England,  207 

321 


322 


Topical  Index 


♦Authorized  Version,  Chap.  XXIV; 
specimen  page,  *278 

Ball,  C.  J.,  edited  Variorum  Apoc¬ 
rypha,  128 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  145 
Bartolocci,  G.,  librarian  Vatican, 

ISO 

Barton,  W.  E.,  owner  of  Sam. 
Manuscripts,  46 

Baruch,  Apocryphal  book,  124 
Baruch,  Apocalypses  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

Baruch,  Rest  of  the  Words  of, 
Pseudepig.  book,  126 
Bede,  tells  of  Csedmon,  208;  story  of 
his  death,  210-11 

Beer  and  Brock  elmann,  editing 
new  Syriac  Bible,  91 
Bel  and  the  Dragon,  part  of  Apocry¬ 
phal  Additions  to  Daniel,  123 
Ben  Asher,  33 

Bensly,  with  Harris  and  Burkitt 
transcribed  Old  Syriac  text,  177 
Bentley,  R.,  150,  175,  201 
Berger,  S.,  on  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate 
Manuscripts,  83,  175 
Beza,  T.,  owner  of  Codex  D,  biblical 
scholar  at  Geneva,  155,  190,  263 
Biblical  Aramaic  in  Old  Testament, 
20 

Birch,  A.,  New  Testament  scholar 
of  Copenhagen,  150 
♦Bishops’  Bible,  appearance  and 
character,  *266-8 
Blayney,  Dr.,  of  Oxford,  46,  281 
Bodley,  John,  member  of  Geneva 
group  of  scholars,  264 
Bohairic  Version, *101 
Bomberg  ed.  of  Hebrew  Bible,  37 
Brescia  Hebrew  Bible,  36 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
issue  Ethiopic  New  Testament, 
186 

Burkitt,  F.  C.,  with  Bensly  and 
Harris  transcribed  Old  Syriac 
text,  177;  views  on  the  Diates- 
saron  and  Old  Syriac,  178;  on 
origin  of  Bohairic  dialect,  184. 

C^DMON,  Celtic-Saxon  poet  singer, 
208-9  * 

Cairo,  Egypt,  former  center  of 
Samaritan  colony,  45;,  Tischen- 
dorf  copied  Codex  Sinaiticus,  145 
Canon  of  the  Jews,  30 
Cassiodorus,  textual  work  of,  83, 
166-7 

♦Catharine,  St.,  monastery  of,  at 
Mt.  Sinai,  S7.  *143-5,  177 
Chajim,  Jacob  ben,  37 


Challoner  and  Troy,  revised  Douai 
Bible,  17s 

Charlemagne,  83;  employed  Alcuin 
to  revise  Vulgate,  168,  174 
Charles  I,  and  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
148 

Chrysostom,  St.,  of  Constanti¬ 
nople,  192 

Classification  of  New  Testament 
Manuscripts,  Chap.  XVII 
Clement,  St.,  Epistles  of,  to  Cor¬ 
inthians  in  Syriac,  182,  192,  194 
Clement  VIII,  pope,  edited  official 
Vulgate,  173-4 

Cochlaeus,  enemy  of  Tyndale  at 
Cologne,  2S6-7 

♦Complutensian  Polyglot,  36,  60, 
*116,  189 

Conant,  T.  J.,  translator  for  Ameri¬ 
can  Bible  Union,  285 
Conybeare,  F.  C.,  opinion  of  Ar¬ 
menian  Version,  106 
Cook,  S.  A.,  20 
Coptic  Versions,  100,  183-5 
Corssen,  P.,  Vulgate  scholar  in  Ger¬ 
many,  175 

♦Coverdale,  Myles,  ed.  first  com¬ 
plete  English  Bible,  *248-9; 
specimen  page,  *250;  two  re¬ 
visions,  250;  *Great  Bible,  *254-8 
Cranmer,  archbishop,  aid  to  Cover- 
dale’s  Bible  work,  252-8;  burnt 
at  stake,  262 

Cromwell,  T,,  friend  of  Coverdale, 

252-8 

Cureton,  W.,  edited  Old  Syriac 
text,  177 

Cuthbert,  St.,  story  of  Bede’s  death, 
210-11;  gospels  of,  213 
Cyprian,  and  Old  Latin  Version, 
160,  163,  192 

Cyril,  with  Methodius,  translated 
Slavonic  Bible,  104 
Cyril,  of  Alexandria,  194-5 

Damascus,  former  center  of  Samari¬ 
tans,  45  ,  _ 

Damasus,  pope,  friend  of  Jerome, 
78 

Daniel,  Additions  to.  Apocryphal 
book,  123 

David  the  philosopher,  cited  in 
Armenian  Version,  107 
Demaus,  author  of  life  of  Tyndale, 
238,  246 
♦Diagrams; 

Origen’s  Hexapla,  *67 
Relations  of  rival  Oreek  Bibles 
and  revisions  to  Sept.,  *72 
Sources  of  Minor  Eastern  Ver¬ 
sions,  *105 


Topical  Index  32  3 


General  relations  of  ancient 
versions  to  the  Hebrew,  *111 
Beginnings  of  modem  versions 
in  1 6th  century,  *245 
Sources  of  revisers  of  Author¬ 
ized  Version,  *276 
Sources  of  Old  Testament  Re¬ 
vised  Version,  opp.  *287 
Diatessaron,  of  Tatian,  176-7 
Didymus,  195 

Dillmann,  A.,  edited  Ethiopic  text 
of  Gen.-Kings,  102 
Dionysius,  194 

Discoveries  in  the  fifteenth  and  six¬ 
teenth  centuries,  233 
Douai  Version,  269-71 
Durham,  Book  of,  213 

Eadfrith,  bishop  of  Lindisfarae, 
copied  Cotton  Manuscript  of 
Gospels,  212-13 

♦Ecclesiasticus  (Wisdom  of  Jesus, 
son  of  Sirach),  Apocryphal  book, 
*124 

Egbert,  bishop  of  Holy  Island, 
translated  Gospels,  210 
Elijah,  Apocalypse  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

Elizabeth,  queen  of  England,  263-71 
Ellicott,  _  bishop,  co-translator  of 
John  and  Epistles,  284;  seconded 
move  for  Revision,  285;  presented 
copy  of  Revision,  289 
Enoch,  Book  of,  Pseudepig.  book, 
1 26 

Enoch,  Secrets  of,  Pseudepig. 
book",  126 

Ephraem  Syrus,  commentary  of, 
86,  177;  sermons  of,  153 
Epiphanius  of  Cyprus,  68 
Erasmus,  edited  first  Greek  New 
Testament,  189,  190,  224 
Erizzo,  count,  edited  Syriac  Lec¬ 
tionary,  182 

Errors  of  transcription,  classes  of, 

27-30 

Esdras,  Apocalypse  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

I  Esdras  (3  Esdras  in  Vulg.),  Apocry¬ 
phal  book,  123 

4  Esdras  (2  Esdras  in  A.  V.), 
Apocryphal  book,  124 
Esther,  Additions  to,  Apocryphal 
book,  123 

Estienne,  see  Stephanus 
*Ethiopic  (or  Ge’ez)  Version,  101, 
*102,  186 

Eusebius,  of  Caesarea,  68,  70;  with 
Pamphilus  revises  Origen,  70,  87; 
adopts  Ammonite  sections  of  New 
Testament,  139 


Euthalius  of  Alexandria,  stichoi  of, 

139 

Evan.,  abbreviation  for  Gospels  in 
cursive  Manuscripts,  141 
Evst.,  abbreviation  for  Lectionaries 
of  (jospels  in  cursive  Manuscripts, 
142 

Exemplar  Parisiense,  a  text  of  the 
Vulgate  in  Paris,  170 

Fayyumic  version,  185 
Fenton,  Bible  in  Modem  English,  2 
Field,  F.,  Hexapla,  70 
Forshall  and  Madden,  edited  Wy- 
cliffe’s  Bible,  226 

Fulke,  reply  to  notes  in  Rheims 
New  Testament,  269 


Gall,  St.,  monastery  of,  169 
Gasquet,  challenges  authenticity  of 
Wycliffe’s  Bible,  226 
Gaster,  M.,  discovers  Hebrew  text 
of  Song  of  Three  Children,  123 
Gaza,  former  center  of  Samaritans, 
45 

Geneva,  Switzerland,  center  of 
biblical  scholars,  263 
*Geneva  Bible,  completed,  *264-5 
Georgian  version,  103,  188 
Gerizim,  Mt.,  site  of  Samaritan 
temple,  42,  43 

Gibson,  Mrs.,  with  Mrs.  Lewis  dis¬ 
covered  Syriac  Manuscripts  at  Mt. 
Sinai,  177 ;  edited  fragments  of 
the  Gospels,  182-3 
Ginsburg,  C.,  author  of  Massorctic 
version,  20 

Gospels,  written  reports,  133 
Gotch,  Dr.,  co-reviser  of  English 
Bible,  284 

♦Gothic  version,  102,  *187 
♦Great  Bible,  *254-9 
Green,  S.  G.,  co-reviser  of  English 
Bible,  284 

Green,  W.  H.,  chairman  American 
Old  Testament  Revision  Com., 
288 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  author  Prolegomena 
to  Greek  New  Testament,  157 
Gregory,  pope,  put  Old  Latin  and 
Vulgate  on  a  par,  165 
Griesbach,  J.  J.,  New  Testament 
textual  critic,  206 

Gutenburg  and  Fust,  printed  first 
Latin  Bible  at  Mayence,  17 1 
Gwilliam,  G.  H.,  with  Pusey  edited 
latest  ed.  of  Peshitta,  178 
Gwynn,  J.,  discovered  and  edited 
Apocalypse  of  Syriac  Bible,  i8i 


Topical  hidex 


324 


Hamptok  Court  Conference,  273- 
4 

Harding,  Stephen,  abbot  of  Citeaux, 

169 

Harris,  J.  R.,  on  Codex  Bezae,  156; 
with  Bensly  and  Burkitt  tran¬ 
scribed  Old  Syriac  text,  177 
Hartmut,  abbot  of  St.  Gall,  169 
Hebrew  Language,  alphabet,  rolls, 
26;  pointed,  32-34;  Manuscripts, 
34-5;  printed  texts,  36-7 
♦Hebrew  Bible,  first  printed  in 
America,  *38 

♦Hebrew  Papyrus,  *Frontispiece 
Henry  VIII,  and  the  Bible,  237-9, 
253,  261-2 

Hentenius,  J.,  edited  Vulgate,  172 
Hereford,  Wycliffe’s  aid  in  transla¬ 
tion,  222-3 

Hesychius,  of  Egypt,  version  of,  71, 
200 

Hetzenauer,  edited  Vulgate,  174 
Hexapla  of  Origen,  diagram  of,  67  I 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  and  Old  Latin 
Bible,  160 

Hoare,  H.  W.,  Evolution  of  English 
Bible,  239,  257 
Holmes  and  Parsons,  59 
Homer,  G.,  edited  Bohairic  Gospels, 
184 

♦Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  with  Westcott  on 
Greek  New  Testament  Manu¬ 
scripts,  Chap.  XVII,  and  often; 
portrait,  *194 

Hug,  L.,  examined  Codex  B  in  Paris 
(1809),  ISO 


•Jacob  ben  Aaron,  high-priest  of 
Samaritans  to-day,  ^46 
Jacob,  of  Edessa,  87 
Jacob,  Dr.,  co-reviser  of  English 
Bible,  284 

Jacobite  branch  of  Syrian  Church, 

181 

James  I,  King  of  England,  Chap. 
XXIV 

James,  M.  R.,  classification  of 
Apocryphal  and  Pseudepigraph- 
ical  books,  122-7 

Jason,  of  Cyrene,  author  of  sources 
of  2  Mace.,  122 

Jerahmeel,  Chronicle  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  123 

Jeremiah,  Epistle  of.  Apocryphal 
book,  124 

Jeremiah,  Prophecy  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

Jerome,  St.,  education,  78;  revision 
work,  79-81;  personality,  81; 
criticism  of,  82 


Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  Wisdom  of. 
Apocryphal  book,  124 
Jews  in  Egypt,  50  ff. 

Job,  Testament  of,  Pseudepig.  book, 
liS 

Joye,  Geo.,  Tyndale’s  amanuensis, 

242 

Jubilees,  Book  of,  Pseudepig.  book, 
I2S 

Judith,  Apocryphal  book,  123-4 

Kennicott,  collector  of  variants  of 
Old  Testament  text,  38 
Kenyon,  F.  G.,  author  of  Criticism 
of  New  Testament,  31 1 
Kipling,  T.,  edited  codex  Bezae,  155 

Lachmann,  K.,  New  Testament 
textual  critic,  190-1 
Lagarde,  P.  de,  72;  edited  Syriac 
Lectionary,  182 

Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  37,  169 

Langton,  S.,  archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  divided  Bible  into  chapters, 
170 

Lascaris,  J.,  brought  codex  Eph- 
raem  to  Europe,  153 
♦Latin  Bible  of  Jerome  (Vulgate), 
*78 

Latin  versions.  Chaps.  VII  and  XV; 

printed  Bibles,  171-6 
Laud,  archbishop,  once  owned  codex 
Laudianus  (e),  162 
"Leda  Bible,”  268 
Lee,  edited  Syriac  Bible,  91 
Lewis,  Mrs.,  see  Mrs.  Gibson 
Lindisfame  Gospels,  213 
Lloyd,  bishop,  issued  Bible  in  1701 
with  Ussher’s  chronology,  281 
Lollards,  established  by  Wycliffe, 
223 

Lord's  Prayer  in  language  of  King 
Alfred,  Wycliffe,  and  Am.  Rev. 
Version,  228 

Lucar,  Cyril,  of  Constantinople, 
147-8 

Lucian,  of  Samosata,  revision  of 
Origen,  70,  200 

Lucifer,  of  Cagliari,  and  Old  Latin, 
160 

Lysimachus,  translator  of  book  of 
Esther,  52 

1  Maccabees,  Apocryphal  book, 
122 

2  Maccabees,  Apocryphal  book,  12a 

3  Maccabees,  Apocryphal  book,  123 

4  Maccabees,  Apocryphal  book,  123 
Madden,  see  Forshall. 


Topical  Index 


325 


Mai,  cardinal,  edited  codex  B,  15 1 
Malkite  (Greek)  church  uses  degen¬ 
erate  Syriac  Bible,  182 
Manasseh,  supposed  founder  of 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  as  Bible 
of  Samaritans,  42 

Manasses,  Prayer  of,  Apocryphal 
book,  124 

Maniacoria,  cardinal,  revised  Vul¬ 
gate,  170 

Manuscripts,  biblical,  list  of — 

♦Codex  Alexandrinus  (A),  57, 
147,  *148,  149 

- Ambrosianus,  (F),  59, 

88-9 

*  - Amiatinus  (A),  84,  *166- 

7 

■ - Basiliano-Vaticanus  (N), 

69 

*  - Bezae  (D),  155-6,  *190 

- Bezae  (d),  161 

- Bezae  (Evan,  d),  164 

- Bobiensis  (k),  162 

-  Bodleianus  (E),  59 

-  Brixianus  (f),  161 

*  - Claromontanus  (d),  163, 

*164 

- Claromontanus  (Paul,  d), 

164 

- Coislinianus  (M),  70 

- Colbertinus  (c),  70 

- Complutensis,  84 

- Corbeiensis  (ff),  163 

*  - Cottonianus  (D),  58, 

*212-3 

- Dublinensis  (O),  71 

*  - Ephraemi  (C),  58,  *163-6 

Firkowitch,  Hebrew,  35 
- Friderico-Augustanus, 

144 

- Gennadius  (Slavonic), 

104- I 06 

- Gigas  Holmiensis  (g),  162 

- Laudianus  (e),  162 

*  - Marchalianus  (Q),  71, 

*72 

Orient.  4445,  34 

- Palatinus  (e),  162 

Perpignan  Manuscript, 

166-6 

Rich,  89;  (Evan,  e),  164 
Samaritan,  46 
-  Sarravianus  (G),  70 

*  - Sinaiticus  (S),  67,  *16, 

143-7 

- Usserianus  (r),  166 

- Vallicellianus  (V),  168 

*  - Vaticanus  (B),  67,  *136, 

160-3,  194  . 

*  - Vercellensis  (a),  161, 

*i6a 


-t - Vercellensis  (Evan,  a), 

164 

- Veronensis  (b),  161 

- Veronensis  (Evan,  b),  614 

- Vindobonensis  (Vienna 

Genesis)  (L),  59 

-  1700  (Syriac),  182 

Manuscripts,  number  of  New 
Testament,  134—40 
Marcion,  biblical  scholar,  134 
Martin,  abbe,  translator  on  Douai 
Bible,  269 

Mary  Deipara,  St.,  Monastery  of, 

88,  177 

Mary  Tudor,  queen  of  England, 

262-3 

Massoretes,  33 

Mazarin  Bible,  printed  1455,  171 
Medici,  Catharine  de,  once  owner  of 
Codex  C,  153 
Melito  of  Sardis,  87 
Memphitic  version,  184 
Mercati,  G.,  discovered  palimpsest 
of  Hexapla,  68,  69 
Mesrop,  St.,  reputed  translator  of 
Georgian  version,  103 
Methodius  with  Cyril,  translated 
Slavonic  version,  104 
Mico,  abbe,  collated  Cod.  B  for 
Bentley,  150 

Mill,  J.,  edition  of  New  Testament, 
154;  on  variants.  200 
Mitchell,  E.  C.,  Critical  Handbook 
to  New  Testament,  157 
Montanus,  Arias,  37 
Moses,  Apocalypse  of,  (same  as 
Book  of  Jubilees)  Pseudepig. 
book,  125 

Moses,  Magical  Books  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

Moses,  Revelation  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126—7 

Moulton,  R.  G.,  Modem  Reader’s 
Bible,  2 

Miinster,  S.,  Latin  text,  256 
Muralt,  de,  examined  Cod.  B  in 
Rome  (1844),  150 

Nablus,  modem  home  of  Samari¬ 
tans.  43 

Napoleon  took  Cod.  B  to  Paris,  150 
Nestle,  Eb.,  catalogue  and  number 
of  New  Testament  Manuscripts, 
139,  140 

Nestorians,  88;  New  Testament  of, 

180 

Neutral  type  of  New  Testament 
Manuscripts,  194 

New  Testament,  writing.  Manu¬ 
scripts,  versions,  criticism.  Part 
II,  13 1  ff. 


326 


Topical  Index 


Nicholas  V,  pope,  secured  Cod.  B, 

X  ISO 

Nitrian  desert,  Egypt,  source  of 
Syriac  Manuscripts,  88,  177 
Noah,  Book  of,  Pseudepig.  book, 
125 

Noyes,  G.  R.,  translator  of  Bible, 
284 

Old  Latin  version,  75;  classification 
of  texts,  76-77;  Chap.  XV;  160 
Old  Syriac  version,  176-8 
Old  Testament,  Hebrew,  writing. 
Manuscripts,  versions,  printed  edi¬ 
tions,  Chap.  Ill 

Onkelos,  author  of  Targum,  64,  94 
Origen,  Hexapla  ed.  of  Sept., 65-70, 
192,  194-5.  199 

Ormulum,  metrical  version  of  parts 
of  Gospels  and  Acts  by  Orm,  215 
Oxford  Parallel  Bible,  282 
*Oxyrhynchus  papyrus  of  Sept.,  $6, 
*58 

Packington,  merchant  friend  of 
Tyndale,  238-9 
Pagninus,  Latin  text  of,  249 
Palimpsest  Manuscript,  meaning  of 
word,  58;  Cod.  Bezse,  153 
Pamphilus,  co-reviser  with  Eusebius 
of  Origen’s  Sept.,  70,  87 
Paris,  Dr.,  edited  Cambridge  Bible, 
281 

Paris  Polyglot,  37 

Paul,  bishop  of  Telia,  translated 
Origen’s  fifth  col.  into  Syriac, 
69,  178,  181 

Paul.,  abbreviation  for  Pauline 
Epistles  of  cursive  Manuscripts, 
142 

Pelagius  and  Old  Latin  text,  160 
Pentateuch  adopted  by  Samaritans, 
43 

Peshitta  Syriac  version,  17,  178, 
192 

Petermann,  author  of  Samaritan 
gram.,  46 

Philostorgius,  authority  on  Ulfilas, 
102 

Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Mabbogh, 
revised  Peshitta,  181 
Platt,  T.  P.,  edited  Ethiopic  New 
Testament,  186 

Polycarp,  translated  Syriac  Bible, 
87;  revised  with  Philoxenus  of 
Mabbogh,  181 
Polyglot  Bibles: 

Complutensian  (1514-17),  36, 
60,  189 

Paris  (1629-45).  37 

London  (Walton)  (1654-7),  37 


Primasius,  commentary  on  Apoc¬ 
alypse,  163 

Psalter,  Additions  to,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

♦Psalter  fragment  of  papyrus,  *58 
Pseudepigrapha,  defined,  121-2; 
books  of,  125-7 

Purvey,  John,  harmonized  Wy- 
cliffe’s  and  Hereford’s  work, 
224-5 

Renaissance  of  Bible  languages, 
232-3 

Revised  Version,  Chap.  XXV 
Revisers  of  16  ii  version,  organized, 
275;  rules  for  work,  276-7;  re¬ 
vision  completed,  277-8 
Revision  Committee  of  1870;  repre¬ 
sentation,  286;  rules  for  work, 
286-7;  completed  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  289;  completed  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  291-2;  texts  used,  292-3; 
improvements,  293-5 ;  improve¬ 
ments  in  form,  295-6 
Reynolds,  Dr.,  a  Puritan,  incited 
James  I  to  Bible  revision,  274 
♦Rheims  New  Testament,  268-9, 
*270 

Roe,  Sir  T.,  presented  Cod.  A  to 
Charles  I,  148 

Rogers,  John,  edited  “Matthew” 
Bible,  250-3;  burnt  at  stake,  262 
Rolle,  Richard,  translated  Psalter, 

216 

Rossi,  G.  B.  de,  compiled  variants 
in  Hebrew  Manuscripts,  38 
Roye,  Tyndale’s  amanuensis,  237 
Rush  worth  Gospels,  213 

Sa’adya  the  Gaon,  translated  Arabic 
Pentateuch,  108 

Sahidic  version.  Old  Testament, 
100;  New  Testament,  183—4 
*St.  Petersburg  Hebrew  Manu¬ 
script,  916  A.D.,  IS,  20,  *34 
Sale  of  Revised  Version,  290 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  Chap.  IV, 
Manuscripts,  text  variants 
Samaritans,  39-44 
Sancto  Caro,  Hugo  de,  37 
Sarcey,  M.  de,  French  diplomat,  45 
Scaliger,  J.,  linguist,  43 
Schaff,  P.,  on  New  Testament  text 
criticism,  199  ff,  288,  290 
Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  classif.  of  texts, 
154;  edited  Codex  Bezae,  155; 
edited  Textus  Receptus,  190-1; 
on  variants  in  New  Testament, 
200 

♦Septuagint,  Chap.  V;  translation, 

52;  purpose,  53;  order  of  Jer, 


Topical  Index 


52,  63;  canon,  54,  55;  *papyrus 
of  third  century,  *56;  first  printed, 
first  great  edition.  Holmes  and 
Parsons,  printed  editions,  60 
Sepulveda  made  known  Cod.  B,  150 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  145 
Shoreham,  William  of,  made  trans¬ 
lation  of  Psalter,  216 
Sibylline  Oracles,  126 
Sixtus  V,  pope,  published  Sixtine 
ed.  of  Vulgate,  172 
Soden,  H.  von,  surveys  New  Testa¬ 
ment  criticisms,  157 
Slavonic  version,  104,  188 
Solomon,  Psalms  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  126 

Solomon,  Testament  of,  Pseudepig. 
book,  1 25 

Solomon,  Wisdom  of.  Apocryphal 
book,  124 

Spalatinus,  tribute  to  Tyndale,  237 
Stephanus,  R.,  edited  Vulgate,  171; 

edited  Greek  New  Testament,  190 
Strozzi,  P.,  once  owner  of  Cod,  C, 
IS3 

Swete,  H.  B.,  text  of  Sept.,  60 
Symmachus’  Greek  version,  65 
♦Syriac  Palimpsest  at  Mt.  Sinai, 
*182 

Syriac  versions.  Chaps.  VIII.  and 
XVI 

♦Syriac  Vulgate,  Westcott  and 
Hort’s  designation  of  Peshitta, 
*90,  178 

Syrian  type  of  New  Testament 
Manuscripts,  192-3 
Syro-Hexaplar  version  of  Paul  of 
Telia,  69,  72,  87 

♦Targum  of  Onkelos,  94;  Jeru¬ 
salem  II,  of  Jonathan,  Jonathan 
bar  Uzziel,  95;  of  prophets,  96; 
rolls,  97;  value,  98;  in  alternate 
verses,  *94 

Tatian,  Diatessaron  of,  138;  176-7 
Taverner,  made  translation  of 
Bible,  259 

Tertullian,  gives  Old  Latin  quota¬ 
tions,  160,  192 

Textual  criticism.  Old  Testament, 
Chaps.  III-X;  New  Testament, 
Chaps.  XIII-XVIII,  rules  for, 

201-5 

Textus  Receptus,  origin  and  char¬ 
acter,  190,  19s,  196 
Theda,  supposed  writer  of  Cod,  A, 
148 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  89,  T92 
Theodotion,  Greek  version  of  Old 
Testament,  64 

Theodulf,  revised  Vulgate,  168 


327 


Thomas  of  Heraklea,  revised  Syriac 
Bible,  181 

Thompson,  Sir  E.  M.,  edited  Cod. 
A,  149 

Three  Children,  Song  of  the,  part  of 
Apocryphal  Additions  to  Daniel, 
123 

Tischendorf,  L.  C.  F.,  discovery  at 
Mt.  Sinai,  57,  143-5;  edited  S, 
and  C,  154,  1 90-1 
Tobit,  Apocryphil  book,  123 
Tregelles,  bibl,  critic,  150,  190-1, 
284 

Tremellius,  Latin  text  of,  used  by 
revisers  16 ii  version,  278 
Trent,  Council  of,  119,  171 
Troy,  archbishop  of  Dublin,  revised 
Douai  Bible,  175 

Tunstall,  bishop  of  London,  Tyn- 
dale’s  enemy,  Coverdale’s  friend, 
234-58 

Twelve  Patriarchs,  Testament  of, 
Pseudepig.  book,  125 
♦Tyndale,  W.,  Chap.  XXI;  *230; 
birth  and  education,  233-4;  in 
London,  235;  in  Hamburg  and 
Wittenberg,  Cologne  and  Worms 
236;  books  destroyed,  238-40, 
kidnaped  and  destroyed,  242-3; 

Ulfilas,  translator  of  Gothic  ver¬ 
sion,  102 

Uncial  texts,  meaning  of,  1S6-40 
♦University  of  Chicago  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Manuscript,  *140 
Urmia  Syriac  text,  91 
Ussher,  archbishop,  author  of  bib¬ 
lical  chronology,  281 

Valle,  P.  de  la,  Italian  traveler,  45 
Variants  in  Old  Testament,  Chap. 
I 

Variorum  Apocrypha,  edited  by 
Ball,  138 

Variorum  Teachers’  Bible,  ii 
Vercellone,  C.,  edited  Cod.  B,  151 
Versions,  value  of,  110-8 
Vulgate  version.  Chaps.  VII  and  XV 

Walton,  B.,  Polyglot  Bible,  37 
Watson,  W.  S.,  owner  of  Samaritan 
Manuscript,  46 

Wearmouth  and  Jarrow,  schools  at, 
169 

♦Westcott,  bishop  B.  F.,  with  Hort, 
New  Testament  textual  critics, 
edited  text.  Chap,  XVIII;  por¬ 
trait,  *192 

Western  type  of  New  Testament 
Manuscripts,  193-4 
White,  H.  J.,  studies  of  Vulgate,  17.5 


Topical  Index 


328 


Whittingham,  prepared  Geneva 
New  Testament,  263-4 
Widmanstad,  A.,  edited  Peshitta, 

178 

Wilberforce,  bishop,  resolution  on 
new  revision,  285 

Woide,  C.  G.,  and  Cowper,  edited 
New  Testament  of  Codex  A,  149  ; 
also  known  fragments  of  Sahidic 
New  Testament,  183 
Woolsey,  Ex-Pres.,  chairman  Amer¬ 
ican  New  Testament  Revision 
Company,  288 

Wordsworth,  bishop,  student  of  Old 
Latin  and  Vulgate  texts,  17s 


♦Wycliffe,  J.,  version  of.  Chap.  XX; 
sketch  of  life,  *218;  clash  with 
Rome,  220;  translated  Bible  into 
English,  221-2;  specimen  page, 
*222;  Hereford’s  help,  322—3; 
Lollards,  223;  death,  224 

XiMENES,  cardinal,  editor  Complu- 
tensian  Polyglot,  36,  60,  189 

Zephaniah,  Apocalypse  of,  Pseu- 
depig.  book,  126 

Zohrab,  edited  Armenian  Bible,  108, 
186 

Zwingli,  edited  Zurich  Bible,  249 


SCRIPTURE  INDEX 


Numbers  refer  to  pages.  Stars  refer  to  illustrations  on  which  text 

is  found. 


GENESIS 


I  :  1-12  .  .  .  .*ii6 

1  :  20 .  7 

3  :  20 .  7 

4:8 . 47.  S3 

5 . 47 

6:3 . 3.  9 

7:3 . 47 

11  :  lof . 47 

12:9 .  7 

14:17 . 56 

19  :  20 . 35 

23  . 21 

2  t  :  10 .  7 

24  :  38-43  ....  *56 

40  :  15 .  7 

43  :  9 .  7 

44:31 . 47 

49  :  7 . 48 

49  :  10  ...  4,9.  47 

EXODUS 

4  :  18 . 47 

8  :  10,  II  ...  .  35 

12  :  46  ....  47.  54 

IS . 31 

17  :  14 . 21 

18  :  I . 47 

19  :  24-20  :  17a  .  *34 

20  :  2-17  *Frontispiece 

20  :  17 . 48 

21-23 . 2^ 

24  :  7 . 2 

29  :  9-21 . *102 

LEVITICUS 
8:7 . 30 

II . 86 

20  :  10 . 28 


NUMBERS 
k  :  22b-38a  .  .  .  *84 

DEUTERONOMY 


0:21 . 48 

i^* . 86 

19  :  2-s . *90 

27:4 . 44.  48 

27  :  s-28  .18  .  .  *38 

3* . 57 


JOSHUA 

1  :  1-2  :  5  ...  *94 

13  :  26 . 30 

JUDGES 

4  . 30 

5  . 31 

5  :  14 . 22 

6:32 . 29 

10  :  8 . 30 

1  SAMUEL 

2  :  i-io  ....  57 

j  :  13 . 27 

9  :  20 .  4 

10  :  25 . 22 

12:11 . 29 

13  :  I . 29 

14  :  i8 .  9 

27  ;  8 . 29 

2  SAMUEL 

3:17 . 29 

5:8 .  4 

6:5 . 53 

ir:i4 . 22 

21  29 

22  32 

1  KINGS 

1  :  1-3  :  4  ...  23 

12  :  18 . 29 

2  KINGS 

8  :  10 .  8 

17  :  24 . 40 

17  : 24-41  ....  41 

20  -.1-7 . *254 

20  :  12 . 29 

20  :  20 . 23 

23  :  15-19  ....  *64 

1  CHRONICLES 

2  . 35 

8  :  29-38  ....  28 

9  :  35-44  ....  28 

29  :  29 . 22 

2  CHRONICLES 

I  ;  13 . lo 


3:4. 

.  28 

10  :  18 

•  29 

32  :  30 

•  23 

33  ■  . 

EZRA 

.  124 

4:2. 

.  41 

4  :  8-6 

:  18  .  . 

20 

4.9.- 

10  .  .  . 

.  41 

7:12- 

26  .  .  . 

20 

NEHEMIAH 


8  : 

1-8  ...  . 

•  92 

8  : 

8 . 

.  32 

13  : 

23-27  .  .  . 

•  42 

13  : 

28  ...  . 

ESTHER 

I  : 

15-2  ;  14 

.  *16 

JOB 

I  : 

►  4 

1 

00 

.  *78 

7  : 

20  .... 

27 

40  : 

IS  .  .  .  . 

7 

4i  : 

I . 

PSALMS 

1 1  : 

7-15:4. 

S6.*58 

18 

•  32 

22 

.  69 

22  : 

I . 

•  93 

22  : 

16  ...  . 

35  : 

7 . 

.  28 

50  : 

18  .  .  .  . 

.  34 

59  : 

10  .  .  .  . 

.  34 

73  : 

.  27 

100 

:  3  .... 

29 

ECCLESIASTES 


1 1  :  1-9 . *250 

ISAIAH 

I  :  I . *222 

I  :  i-4a  .  .  .  .*168 
8  :  20 .  s 

23  :  13 .  S 

39  :  I . 29 

40  :  3-9 . *266 

40  ;  9 .  5 

52  :  2 .  8 

329 


330 

S3  :  I . 

S 

61  :  if . 

31 

JEREMIAH 

6:7 . 

30 

10  :  1 1 . 

20 

IS  :  19 . 

S3 

25  :  13 . 

52 

27  :  I . 

29 

32  :  9-15  .... 

22 

43  and  44  ...  . 

50 

46-51 . 

52 

SI  :  I . 

7 

EZEKIEL 

5  :  12-17  .... 

*72 

23  :  42  . 

53 

32:31  . 

53 

34 ;  16 . 

53 

DANIEL 

2  :  4-7  :  28  .  .  .  20 


AMOS 


6:12  ... 

MATTHEW 

I  :  i-4a  .  . 

.  .*140 

I  ;  i-i7a  .  . 

.  .*182 

I  :  16  ... 

.  .  20s 

2:2.  .  .  . 

.  .  5 

5  : 46  ... 

.  .  7 

6:11  ... 

.  .  7 

6  :  13  ... 

.  .  8 

IS  :  27-16  :  3 

.  .*238 

20  :  16-23  •  • 

.  .*154 

25  :  41  ... 

.  .  5 

27  :  46  ... 

.  .  93 

Scripture  Index 

MARK 

3  :  14  .... 

7:3-7.  .  .  . 

.*187 

9  :  49  .... 

II  :  25  .... 

.  203 

16  :  1-20  .  .  . 

.  147 

16  :  9!!  .... 

8 

16  ;  9-20  .  .  . 

.  185 

LUKE 

1:4 . 

5 

I  :  35  .... 

5 

4 :  i7f  .  .  .  . 

.  31 

4:32b-s:6  . 

.  *166 

6  :  1-9  .... 

12:31  .... 

JOHN 

1:1-4.  .  .  . 

1:9 . 

5 

I  :  18  .... 

.  147 

3 : 31b, 32a 

8 

8 :  i-ii  ... 

.  186 

9:11  .... 

16  :  23-30  .  .  . 

.*162 

17  :  2 . 

7 

ACTS 

13  :  1-6  .  .  .  . 

IS  :  21 . 31 

20  :  28 . 147 

ROMANS 

7:4-7 . *164 

8  ;  28b . 204 

I  CORINTHIANS 

2  :  13 .  6 

S  :  8 . 133 


6:12 . 227 

7:1 . 133 

16  :  3 . 133 

2  CORINTHIANS 
2:17 .  6 

3  :  1-4  :  6  .  .  .*136 

10  :  10 . 133 

11  :  28 . 133 

GALATIANS 
1:1-9 . *264 

COLOSSIANS 

1  :  2  .  .  «  .  .  .  6 

4  :  16 . 132 

PHILIPPIANS 
3  :  18 . 133 

2  THESSALONIANS 

3:17 . 133 

I  JOHN 

S :  9-2  John  13  .*148 

REVELATION 
6  :  i-s . *278 

APOCRYPHA 

ECCLESIASTICUS 


48  :  17  .... 

.  23 

51  ;  6c-i2-f-  .  . 

.  *124 

BARUCH 

3  :  20  .... 

I  MACC. 

I  :  56,  57  .  .  . 

.  25 

BS445.P94  ^  .o  u, 

The  ancestry  of  our  English  Bible  .  an 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1012  00081  0178 


